Over 180 people have accused Massage Envy therapists of sexual assault—and that’s just those who have come forward. Behind the wellness branding and soft lighting is a mess of lawsuits alleging abuse, discrimination, shady hiring, and corporate deflection.
If Massage Envy harmed you, you might have a case.
Call (833) 552-7274 today or contact us online. At LitigationConnect, our network of lawyers will connect you with someone who knows how to deal with franchise abuse and hold corporate players accountable.
Contact Our Team Today
Allegations of Misconduct and Abuse
The accusations against Massage Envy reflect a consistent pattern of negligence across multiple locations.
Sexual Assault by Massage Therapists
Clients across the U.S. reported being touched inappropriately or assaulted during their sessions. These weren’t ambiguous situations. Multiple victims said they froze mid-session, unable to process what was happening. Some fled mid-appointment. Others left in shock, only to break down hours or days later.
Many of the reports describe:
- Genital contact during sessions that was clearly outside the scope of any legitimate massage.
- Unwanted touching after clients said “no” or physically pulled away.
- Therapists exposing themselves or masturbating during appointments.
In nearly every case, the setting was the same: one client, one therapist, a closed room. No cameras. No oversight. And no accountability after the incident.
Failure to Screen and Monitor Staff
Massage Envy’s model pushed rapid expansion over rigorous screening. Several accused therapists had previous complaints—some even from other franchise locations. Yet no system flagged these names. No corporate-wide HR database existed to track internal issues across franchises.
That kind of blind spot doesn’t happen by accident.
The lawsuits allege:
- Franchises didn’t conduct national background checks—just state-level ones, if any.
- Complaints at one location never followed the employee to their next job down the street.
- Some therapists moved freely between cities despite multiple red flags.
The implication: safety wasn’t a priority. Not for clients. Not for employees.
Negligent Handling of Client Complaints
Recall that many victims didn’t just experience assault—they reported it. And then got ignored.
Instead of alerting law enforcement or suspending the accused, franchise owners sometimes offered victims free massages or membership extensions. Some were told the incident didn’t qualify as assault. Others say they were discouraged from “making a big deal” of it.
In a few cases, victims only learned their therapist had previous complaints after seeing media reports—years later.
Patterns in lawsuits show:
- Reports went unfiled or were kept “internal” without documentation.
- Management protected staff over clients, fearing brand damage.
- No standard procedure existed for escalating serious accusations.
This is what the lawsuits hinge on—not just that abuse happened, but that it happened again and again under the same business practices.
Franchise Model and Legal Liability
Massage Envy doesn’t operate like a typical business. It’s a sprawling franchise network—1,100+ locations, each owned independently, each with its own policies and procedures.
That structure becomes a legal landmine when abuse, discrimination, or misconduct shows up at multiple spots across the country.
Franchise Autonomy
Corporate Massage Envy licenses the brand. Franchisees run the day-to-day—hiring, firing, customer service, HR. That separation gives the parent company deniability. When things go south, they point to the franchisee and say: “We don’t manage their staff.”
But when those franchisees use Massage Envy branding, follow their systems, and bring in revenue for corporate? The line starts to blur.
Franchise owners handle:
- Recruiting and vetting therapists
- Managing customer complaints
- Compliance with state and federal employment laws
Corporate provides:
- The name
- National advertising
- Operational manuals
- Revenue from licensing
Blurred Accountability
That’s where the legal battles heat up. Plaintiffs want corporate on the hook—not just the local franchisee. Their argument is that Massage Envy’s business model creates risk by giving brand access without enforcing safety controls. And when abuse spreads across multiple franchises, it starts to look like a system failure, not a string of bad luck.
Courts look at:
- Degree of control: Did corporate enforce policies across franchises?
- Economic integration: Are franchisees so tied to corporate that the two operate as one?
- Negligence in oversight: Did corporate know—or should they have known—about the risks?
In some states, courts apply the “joint employer” doctrine. Under this rule, corporate liability hinges on whether the franchisor shares control over terms and conditions of employment. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has changed its stance over time, but recent cases lean toward holding franchisors accountable when their influence goes beyond branding.
Class Action Dynamics
The individual lawsuits started piling up. Then came the class actions.
These suits try to draw a line between hundreds of isolated complaints and corporate-level patterns. Lawyers argue that if the same misconduct keeps showing up, and corporate keeps cashing the checks, they own part of the problem.
Class actions allege:
- Systemic failure to prevent abuse
- No centralized system for tracking therapist misconduct
- Deliberate avoidance of oversight to preserve legal distance
Massage Envy’s structure gives them scale, but it also creates exposure. The more franchises operate under the same logo, the harder it becomes to claim each incident is just a one-off.
ADA and Discrimination Lawsuits
While the sexual assault allegations drew national attention, a quieter set of lawsuits exposed how Massage Envy treated people with disabilities and pregnant employees. These cases didn’t involve physical harm, but they struck at basic civil rights protected by federal law.
Disability Discrimination Allegations
The U.S. Department of Justice stepped in after receiving complaints that Massage Envy refused to accommodate disabled clients. Some locations required clients with disabilities to bring someone with them to help undress, redress, or transfer onto the massage table. Instead of offering staff support or adjusting the service, the company shifted the burden onto the client.
That’s a direct violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)—specifically Title III, which prohibits public accommodations from discriminating against individuals based on disability. The ADA doesn’t allow businesses to push responsibility onto clients. If an accommodation is reasonable and doesn’t impose an undue burden, the business must provide it.
The DOJ agreement forced Massage Envy to:
- End the policy requiring third-party assistance
- Train franchise staff on ADA obligations
- Adopt written policies to handle requests for accommodations
This wasn’t a lawsuit between two private parties. This was the federal government telling a national franchise: You broke the law. Fix it.
Pregnancy Discrimination
Massage Envy also landed in court over how it treated pregnant workers. In one case, a Missouri-based franchise fired a massage therapist after she informed them she was expecting. She says they pulled her from the schedule with no discussion, no offer of modified duties, no plan for accommodation.
That violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. Under this law, employers can’t fire or demote someone because they’re pregnant. If the employee can still perform their job—or can do so with a reasonable adjustment—the employer must find a solution, not an exit.
The lawsuit, filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), accused the franchise of:
- Unlawful termination based on pregnancy
- Failing to explore possible accommodations
- Retaliating against the employee for asserting her rights
Federal law treats pregnancy discrimination like any other form of sex-based discrimination. Massage Envy didn’t get a pass just because it’s a wellness business or because the franchise was independently owned. When a worker gets pushed out due to pregnancy, the law sees it as a civil rights issue—not a scheduling conflict.
Employee Treatment and Wrongful Termination
The lawsuits weren’t limited to customers. Inside the treatment rooms, some employees say they faced their own version of harm—one where illness, personal health, or asserting basic rights got them fired.
Health-Related Firings
One lawsuit involved a front desk worker terminated after returning from a trip abroad. She showed no symptoms, tested negative, and followed all required protocols. Management still let her go, citing vague fears about “exposure risk.”
The problem? That decision potentially violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)—again, this time under Title I, which protects employees from discrimination based on disability or perceived disability. A boss doesn’t get to fire someone just because they might pose a health risk without real evidence.
Legal arguments focused on:
- Wrongful termination based on perceived illness rather than fact
- Failure to engage in an interactive process to determine if accommodation was possible
- No objective medical basis for the firing
The ADA doesn’t allow employers to act based on fear or speculation. If the employee isn’t contagious, symptomatic, or medically restricted, the law doesn’t support booting them “just in case.”
Inconsistent Workplace Policies
Some Massage Envy employees described the work environment as chaotic. Policies changed depending on the manager. Breaks were skipped. Overtime went unpaid. Pressure to keep clients happy overrode everything else—including labor law.
Complaints include:
- Unpaid labor before or after scheduled shifts
- No guaranteed rest breaks despite state-mandated rules (like California’s Labor Code § 512, which requires a 30-minute meal break for shifts over five hours)
- Retaliation for speaking up about unsafe conditions or illegal scheduling practices
Because franchises operate independently, enforcement varies wildly. Some locations follow the rules. Others treat workers like disposable parts. The result was employees facing burnout, stress, and sometimes termination just for asking to follow the law.
Massage Envy promotes self-care to customers. The lawsuits suggest they didn’t extend the same courtesy to their own staff.
Membership Fee Disputes
Massage Envy didn’t just face backlash for what happened inside the massage rooms. It also drew fire for what happened inside clients’ bank accounts. Hundreds of members say the company locked them into confusing billing cycles, surprise charges, and auto-renewals they never clearly agreed to.
Unauthorized Fee Increases
Several lawsuits allege Massage Envy raised monthly membership fees without proper disclosure or consent. Clients enrolled at one price, only to see higher charges appear months later—sometimes without a single email, notice, or opt-in.
The company’s defense? The fine print. Plaintiffs argue the contract language was vague at best, misleading at worst. Hidden clauses gave Massage Envy the ability to increase rates after a set term, even when the member had no idea they agreed to that structure.
Legal claims focused on:
- Lack of mutual assent in contract terms (basic contract law requires clear agreement)
- Violations of consumer protection statutes like California’s Business & Professions Code § 17200 (unfair or deceptive practices)
- Unconscionable contract terms that favored the business without real recourse for the client
Class-Action Legal Pushback
A class-action settlement in California aimed to resolve some of these claims. But the Ninth Circuit tossed it out. The court said the proposed agreement showed signs of collusion between Massage Envy and class counsel—meaning the people negotiating didn’t do enough to protect the interests of affected clients.
The deal would’ve given members minor benefits in exchange for waiving their rights to sue individually. But too much was hidden behind legal language and procedural shortcuts. The court wanted transparency, not backroom deals.
The rejection triggered more scrutiny of how Massage Envy handles customer agreements and whether future settlements would face the same legal skepticism.
Transparency Issues
Cancellation became another battleground. Clients tried to end their memberships, only to discover:
- Hidden cancellation windows buried in contract language
- Extra charges after cancellation, often claimed as “processing time” or billing delays
- Conflicting instructions between corporate and franchise-level management
Customer service agents gave different answers depending on who you spoke to, which location you visited, or what month it was. Some clients got billed for months after their final visit then had to chase down refunds through their banks.
The lawsuits framed these issues as more than sloppy admin. They accused Massage Envy of creating friction by design, keeping members locked in, cash flowing, and exit doors just out of reach.
Hold the Franchise Accountable
A massage should never lead to a courtroom. But when it does, make sure the right people end up on the other side of the table—whether that’s the franchise, the corporation, or both.
Call (833) 552-7274 today or contact us online. At LitigationConnect, our network of lawyers will connect you with someone who knows how to take on companies that hide behind fine print and franchise loopholes.