Last month, the US Department of Labor (DOL) issued the final rule revising its regulations that interpret joint employer status under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). There are two primary scenarios for determining joint employer status under the FLSA. Only the first was affected by the final rule.
In its Jan. 12 announcement, the DOL explained the affected first scenario stating: “The final rule provides updated guidance for determining joint employer status when an employee performs work for his or her employer that simultaneously benefits another individual or entity, including guidance on the identification of certain factors that are not relevant when determining joint employer status.” (emphasis added)
There is a growing variety and number of business models and labor arrangements that have made joint employment far more common than in the past, and the DOL considers joint employment issues in literally hundreds of investigations each year. So, why is this big deal? Because if the DOL finds a joint employer relationship, then all of the hours worked by the employee for either of the joint employers are hours worked for purposes of determining overtime pay each week. In addition, the DOL may hold each of the joint employers liable for any violations.
The new regulations, which were published on Jan. 16 in the Federal Register, apply a balancing test that examines whether the potential joint employer:
• hires or fires the employee;
• supervises and controls the employee’s work schedule or conditions of employment to a substantial degree;
• determines the employee’s rate and method of payment; and
• maintains the employee’s employment records.
Significantly, the potential employer must actually exercise control over the worker. Simply having the ability is relevant, but it is not determinative without some actual exercise of control.
The DOL notes that factors such as whether there is a franchise agreement, or contracts in place obligating compliance with health and safety or quality standards do not make a joint employer relationship more, or less, likely. Nor is the provision of a sample handbook or other employment forms, participating in an apprenticeship program or providing association health care or retirement plans particularly relevant to the analysis.
In fact, “whether the employee is economically dependent on the potential joint employer, including factors traditionally used to establish whether a particular worker is a bona fide independent contractor (e.g., the worker’s opportunity for profit or loss, their investment in equipment and materials, etc.), are not relevant to determine joint employer liability.”
In its January 2020 Fact Sheet, the DOL indicated that the test for the “second scenario” remained largely unaffected by the final rule, explaining as follows:
If the employers are acting independently of each other and are disassociated with respect to the employment of the employee, each employer may disregard all work performed by the employee for the other employer in determining its liability under the FLSA.
The DOL cautioned, however, that if the employers are “sufficiently associated with respect to the employment of the employee,” they will be determined to be joint employers which will require them to aggregate all of the hours the employee works for both of the employers for purposes of overtime compliance:
The employers will generally be sufficiently associated if there is an arrangement between them to share the employee’s services, the employer is acting directly or indirectly in the interest of the other employer in relation to the employee, or they share control of the employee, directly or indirectly, by reason of the fact that one employer controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with the other employer.
In my experience, most employers are oblivious to the concept of joint employer relationships or that hours worked for either company may need to be stacked for purposes of overtime pay calculations.
The final rule, which becomes effective March 16, 2020, provides several examples of how the DOL analyzes joint employer relationships in various situations.
Finally, remember, this is the test applied only under the FLSA. There are different tests under the National Labor Relations Act, civil rights laws and for pensions and welfare benefits under the Employee Retirement Security Act, to name a few.
If you have any questions about the wage laws or any other employment related issues, always consult an experienced employment attorney.
- Of Counsel
An of counsel attorney in the firm’s Detroit office, Claudia D. Orr exclusively represents and advises employers and management in employment and labor law matters.
Ms. Orr has an ever-growing practice in Alternative Dispute ...
Add a comment
- Employment Liability
- Labor Law
- Human Resources
- Wage & Hour
- Minimum Wage
- Employment Agreement
- Whistleblower Protection Act
- Unemployment Benefits
- Employment Discrimination
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
- At Will Employment
- Department of Labor (DOL)
- Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
- Paid Medical Leave Act (PMLA)
- Regulatory Law
- Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA)
- OSHA Issues
- Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA)
- National Labor Relations Act
- Title VII
- Sick Leave
- Workplace Harassment
- Hostile Work Environment
- Business Risk Management
- Noncompete Agreements
- National Labor Relations Board
- Department of Justice
- Transgender Issues
- Workers' Compensation
- Medicare Issues
- Sexual Harassment
- Class Actions
- Civil Rights
- Social Media
- Retail Liability
- Emergency Information
- Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA)
- Department of Education (DOE)
- Tax Law
- Title IX
- Medical Marijuana
- Right to Work
- Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)
- Union Organizing & Relations
- Michigan Appellate Court Overturns Decision on Minimum Wage, Paid Sick Leave Requirements
- Michigan Supreme Court Ruling Could Result in High Exposure Claims Against Employers
- FTC Proposes Ban on All Employer Noncompete Agreements
- Court Delays Ruling on Fate of Michigan’s Paid Sick Leave, Minimum Wage Laws Until February 2023
- Michigan Supreme Court Affirms State’s Civil Right Law Prohibits Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation
- DOJ Issues Guidance on ADA, Opioid Crisis Issues
- Congress Passes Law, With Retroactive Effect, to Invalidate Forced Arbitration Provisions at the Employee’s Election
- U.S. Supreme Court Temporarily Blocks Implementation of Vaccine Requirement for Large Businesses
- Contractual Limitations Periods STILL Alive and Well... on job Applications!
- Federal Appellate Court Takes Brakes Off COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate Carousel