Skip to main content

Labor Department Finalizes Joint Employer Rule


The Labor Department has released a final version of the joint employer rule, which makes it more difficult for businesses to be held liable when their franchisees or contractors violate the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Under this finalized joint employer rule, set to take effect on March 16, a four part test is used to determine whether a business is jointly liable for minimum wage and overtime violations.  This four part test weighs whether the business, with regard to its franchisee or contractor, maintains the power to hire and fire; to supervise schedules and 'conditions of employment'; to set pay; and to keep employment records.  Notably, businesses will not be considered joint employers by virtue of their business model alone.  As a result, franchisors will not be considered joint employers just because they are franchisors.

Now bear in mind, the National Labor Relations Board ("NLRB") is expected to finalize a similar rule that clarifies when a business should be classified as a joint employer as to collective bargaining and unfair labor practice charges.  As well, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") is also expected to finalize a rule that clarifies when a business should be classified as a joint employer under federal employment discrimination laws.


For additional information:  https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/trump-cements-rule-to-limit-companies-joint-employer-liability

For a copy of the finalized rule:  https://aboutblaw.com/N6d

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum,...
Post a Comment
Read more

San Diego Rolls Back Vaccine Mandate For City Workers

Last Tuesday, the San Diego City Council voted to do away with the vaccine mandate for city employees. The city’s vaccine mandate that was in place required city workers to get the coronavirus vaccine or risk termination.  Perhaps to this surprise of no one, the city’s policy came under fire with 14 employees being terminated and over 100 other employees resigning.  With the coronavirus subsiding, including in Southern California, the San Diego City Council took action. Now, bear in mind, the repeal of the vaccine mandate does not take place immediately. With that being said, the mandate will be repealed March 8th.  I suppose the question now is, what other cities or regions follow San Diego’s lead? For additional information:   https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2023-01-24/san-diego-repeals-controversial-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-citing-drop-in-cases-hospitalizations
Post a Comment
Read more

NLRB: Former Employee Cannot Be Barred From Work Premises After Filing Wage Suit

MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC - NLRB Facts :  MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC d/b/a Grand Sierra Resort & Casino ("GSR") operated a facility that included a hotel, casino, restaurant, clubs, bars, and a pool which were all open to the general public.  Tiffany Sargent ("Sargent") was briefly employed by GSR as a "beverage supervisor" in December of 2012.  After her employment ended, Sargent continued to socialize at one of the clubs.  GSR had a long standing practice of allowing former employees to patronize its facility and did not prohibit Sargent from doing so.  In June of 2013, Sargent and another employee filed a class and collective action against GSR for alleged unpaid wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada law.  In July of 2014, GSR denied Sargent access to an event at one of the clubs.  GSR followed up with a letter and stated that with the on-going litigation (from the wage suit), it decided to bar Sargent from the premises. ...
1 comment
Read more