Joint Employer

Subscribe to Joint Employer

When a franchisor provides a California franchisee with detailed instructions about how to operate the franchise business, but allows the franchisee to manage its own workforce, can the franchisor be held liable for the franchisee’s wage and hour violations?  The California Court of Appeals found the answer to be no.
Continue Reading Are Franchisors Joint Employers in California Wage Cases?

On April 16, newly confirmed member John Ring was sworn in as the fifth member and Chairman of the National Labor Relations Board, establishing a Republican-controlled Board.   While all has been relatively quiet with regard to rulings from the Board,  we will likely see a rise in activity now that the NLRB (with a  newly-minted majority) is poised to roll back some of the Obama-era rulings.
Continue Reading Republican-Controlled NLRB is Poised to Review Obama-era Rulings

The National Labor Relations Board and McDonald’s Corp. have reached a settlement agreement in the long-running employment retaliation case brought against McDonald’s that hinges on whether McDonald’s Corp., as a franchisor, has enough control over its franchisees to be considered a “joint employer” of the franchisees’ employees.
Continue Reading Settlement in McDonald’s Litigation Is Another Twist On the Road to Joint Employer Certainty

We previously informed you of the NLRB’s decision in Hy-Brand Industrial Contractors, Ltd. and Brandt Construction Co. in which the Board  overruled the controversial joint employer test which it had announced in Browning-Ferris Industries. On February 26, 2018, the Board entered an order vacating the Hy-Brand decision.  It did so in light of a determination by the Board’s Designated Agency Ethics Official, that Board Member William Emanuel “is, and should have been, disqualified from participating in the [Hy-Brand] proceeding.” …
Continue Reading NLRB Vacates Hy-Brand Joint Employer Decision

The National Labor Relations Board issued a much-anticipated decision on Thursday, overruling its controversial 2015 Browning-Ferris decision that unions and employees argued drastically expanded the definition and scope of the Board’s joint-employer doctrine. In Browning-Ferris, the Board departed from decades of precedent and held that entities who merely possessed—as opposed to directly and immediately exercised—control over workers would be deemed joint employers for purposes of assessing liability under the National Labor Relations Act. …
Continue Reading NLRB Overrules Browning-Ferris to Reinstate Prior Joint-Employer Standard

In a press release issued this morning, the Department of Labor has announced that it is withdrawing two administrative interpretations issued by the Department of Labor under the Obama administration in 2015 and 2016 relating to misclassification of independent contractors and joint employment.
Continue Reading Department of Labor Announces a Rollback of Obama Administration Policies on Joint Employment and Employee Classification

At the request of the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, the New York Court of Appeals recently answered several questions regarding liability under the New York Human Rights Law Section 296(15)—which prohibits denying employment on the basis of criminal convictions……
Continue Reading New York Court Clarifies Who Can Be Liable For Discrimination On The Basis Of Criminal Convictions

Much has been written about the National Labor Relations Board’s controversial Browning-Ferris decision that significantly expanded the scope of joint employer liability under the National Labor Relations Act. But virtually no attention has been given to the Fourth Circuit’s recent panel decision in Salinas v. Commercial Interiors, Inc., which creates an altogether new and incredibly broad joint employment standard under the Fair Labor Standards Act that makes the NLRB’s Browning-Ferris joint employment standard seem temperate at best.
Continue Reading 4th Circuit Joint Employer Test Is Incredibly Broad

On February 27, 2017, the United States Circuit Court for the District of Columbia heard oral argument in the case entitled Browning-Ferris Industries of California, Inc., d/b/a/ Browning-Ferris Newby Island Recyclery v. National Labor Relations Board, Nos. 16-1028, 16-1063 and 16-1064. This appeal challenges the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) new and imprecise standard for determining whether companies are “joint employers” for purposes of the National Labor Relations Act. The new standard, first issued in Browning-Ferris Industries, 362 NLRB No. 186 (Aug. 27, 2015), abandons consideration of a company’s direct and immediate control over employees in favor of a fact-specific approach that focuses more on “reserved” or “indirect” control.
Continue Reading District of Columbia Circuit Hears Oral Argument on Browning-Ferris “Joint Employer” Standard