The U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) has published a final rule, which takes effect on March 16, 2020, outlining the new four-factor approach DOL will use to determine whether, under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), a business is a “joint employer” of another company’s employees and thus jointly and severally liable for wage and hour obligations.  The new rule comes as good news for employers because it establishes a concrete and narrow standard for determining joint employer status and is expected to provide clearer guidance to federal courts making joint employer determinations.

The final rule represents the first time in 60 years that DOL has issued a joint employer rule, although over the decades it has issued guidance both expanding and contracting the scope of the definition and potential liability.  Furthermore, the rule is consistent with a series of actions that DOL, under the Trump administration, has taken to rescind the previously broader definition of “joint employer” under the Obama administration (including its June 7, 2017 withdrawal of employee-friendly Administrator’s Interpretation guidance documents from 2015 and 2016).

Notably, the rule is part of the current administration’s economic stimulus initiative.  DOL has indicated that the new rule is designed to “promote certainty for employers and employees, reduce litigation, promote greater uniformity among court decisions and encourage innovation in the economy.”  In a DOL news release, Secretary of Labor Eugene Scalia explained that “[t]his final rule furthers President Trump’s successful, government-wide effort to address regulations that hinder the American economy and to promote economic growth.”

DOL’s new streamlined joint employer approach balances four factors to determine whether a business has sufficient control over another entity’s employees such that it should be considered a joint employer:

  1. Whether the business hires and fires the employees;
  2. Whether the business supervises and controls the employees’ work schedules or conditions of employment to a substantial degree;
  3. Whether the business determines the rate and methods of payment for the employees; and
  4. Whether the business maintains the employees’ employment records.

No single factor is controlling, with the weight of each to be considered on a case-by-case basis, and additional factors may be considered only if they indicate whether a putative joint employer is exercising significant control over the terms and conditions of the employee’s work.  This guidance significantly narrows the range of factors that courts may consider in conducting analyses.  The rule also makes clear that in order to be a joint employer under the FLSA, the potential joint employer must actually exercise–directly or indirectly–one or more of the four control factors.  The mere potential for an entity to exercise a certain amount of control over an employee is not enough to expose the entity to liability as a “joint employer”; rather, there must be a showing of actual exercise of such ability, power, or right.

In the ruling, DOL also highlighted certain factors that would not, in and of themselves, indicate joint employer status, including:

  • Existence of a franchisor business model;
  • Use of profit sharing or eventual hiring of temporary workers;
  • Dictating the specific location or timing of work;
  • Monitoring or ensuring compliance by suppliers, vendors, subcontractors, or franchisees with contractual obligations or with health, safety, or legal obligations;
  • Requiring, monitoring, and enforcing another business’s compliance with quality control standards; or
  • Providing business advice, benefits, or resources (for example, providing materials or suggesting methods that a franchisee, subcontractor, or other entity can use to improve business strategies or profitability).

Notably, NLRB and EEOC currently apply their own, different, standards for determining joint employment, although both agencies are expected to release updated rules in the coming months.  State law tests may vary as well.  To manage risks, businesses should continue to carefully monitor their relationships and contracts with other entities to ensure that they are not directly or indirectly exercising control over workers the business does not directly employ, and should consider whether other safeguards may be needed.  More information on DOL’s new rule is available on the agency’s website.

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Lindsay Burke Lindsay Burke

Lindsay Burke co-chairs the firm’s Employment Practice Group and regularly advises U.S., international, and multinational employers on employee management and culture issues and international HR compliance. She is a key member of the firm’s Institutional Culture and Social Responsibility practice, working together with…

Lindsay Burke co-chairs the firm’s Employment Practice Group and regularly advises U.S., international, and multinational employers on employee management and culture issues and international HR compliance. She is a key member of the firm’s Institutional Culture and Social Responsibility practice, working together with white collar colleagues to conduct culture assessments, internal investigations of executive misconduct, and civil rights and racial equity audits and assessments. Lindsay has been at the forefront of the changing workplace issues impacting employers in the U.S. in the last decade, including #MeToo, Covid-19, and the renewed focus on diversity, equity, and inclusion. She frequently advises employers in relation to their processes and procedures for investigating complaints of discrimination, harassment, and retaliation and trains executive teams and board members on culture risk and the lawful implementation of DEI programs.

Lindsay also guides employers through the process of hiring and terminating employees and managing their performance, including the drafting and review of employment agreements, restrictive covenant agreements, separation agreements, performance plans, and key employee policies and handbooks. She provides practical advice against the backdrop of the web of state and federal employment laws, such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Equal Pay Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the False Claims Act, with the objective of minimizing the risk of employee litigation. When litigation looms, Lindsay relies on her experience as an employment litigator to offer employers strategic advice and assistance in responding to demand letters and agency charges.

Lindsay works frequently with the firm’s privacy, employee benefits and executive compensation, corporate, government contracts, and cybersecurity practice groups to ensure that all potential employment issues are addressed in matters handled by these groups. She also regularly provides U.S. employment law training, support, and assistance to start-ups, non-profits, and foreign parent companies opening affiliates in the U.S.

Photo of Carolyn Rashby Carolyn Rashby

Carolyn Rashby provides business-focused advice and counsel to companies navigating the constantly evolving and overlapping maze of federal, state, and local employment requirements. Carolyn’s approach is preventive, while recognizing the need to set clients up for the best possible defense should disputes arise.…

Carolyn Rashby provides business-focused advice and counsel to companies navigating the constantly evolving and overlapping maze of federal, state, and local employment requirements. Carolyn’s approach is preventive, while recognizing the need to set clients up for the best possible defense should disputes arise.

As a senior member of Covington’s Institutional Culture and Social Responsibility Practice Group, Carolyn has co-led significant investigations into workplace culture, DEI issues, and reports of sexual misconduct and workplace harassment.

As an employment lawyer with over two decades of experience, Carolyn focuses on a wide range of compliance and regulatory matters for employers, including:

  • Conducting audits regarding employee classification and pay equity
  • Advising on employment issues arising in corporate transactions
  • Strategic counseling on a wide range of issues including discrimination and harassment, wages and hours, worker classification, workplace accommodations and leave management, performance management and termination decisions, workplace violence, employment agreements, trade secrets, restrictive covenants, employee handbooks, and personnel policies
  • Drafting employment contracts and offer letters, separation agreements, NDAs, and other employment agreements
  • Advising on employee privacy matters, including under the California Consumer Privacy Act
  • Providing guidance on use of AI in the workplace and development of related policies
  • Leading anti-harassment and other workplace-related trainings, for employees, executives, and boards

Carolyn also works frequently with the firm’s white collar, privacy, employee benefits and executive compensation, corporate, government contracts, and cybersecurity practice groups to ensure that all potential employment issues are addressed in matters handled by these groups.

Photo of Nori Lu Nori Lu

Nori Lu focuses her practice on counseling clients on employment law compliance and risk mitigation. She advises companies on a broad range of employment-related matters, including personnel policies, employment contracts, workplace investigations, hiring, discipline, termination, and wage and hour compliance. She conducts employment-related…

Nori Lu focuses her practice on counseling clients on employment law compliance and risk mitigation. She advises companies on a broad range of employment-related matters, including personnel policies, employment contracts, workplace investigations, hiring, discipline, termination, and wage and hour compliance. She conducts employment-related diligence and advises on aspects of transactions involving the transfer and retention of personnel. She also has experience litigating claims related to employee restrictive covenants, trade secret misappropriation, wage and hour, discrimination, and retaliation.

Nori was previously a member of the firm’s corporate practice and has experience advising private and public companies in connection with venture capital financings, mergers and acquisitions, corporate governance matters, and commercial transactions.