Accessibility Tools

Skip to main content

Labor Department Withdraws Obama-Era Guidance that Sought to Expand Joint Employment

Written on .

In a June 7, 2017 news release, U.S. Secretary of Labor (DOL) Alexander Acosta announced the withdrawal of informal guidance issued in 2015 and 2016 on joint employment and independent contractors.  No statutes or regulations are repealed or amended, and case law isn’t affected, but the change means that DOL is abandoning the previous Administration’s expansive position.

This is really a return to prior, longstanding practice.  Until 2015, DOL interpreted the joint employer doctrine to apply only where one business had “direct control” over another business’s workforce. In 2015, and again in 2016, DOL changed its position and announced that it would consider that one business may be a joint employer with another even if it exerted only “indirect control.” DOL’s plain, if veiled, intention was to reach the deep pockets of a franchisor (think burgers) in the event that an individual franchisee was determined to have committed violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the Migrant and Seasonal Workers Protection Act (MSWPA), or even laws prohibiting discrimination, such as Title VII and the ADA. 

Critics of “indirect control” argued that it was ambiguous and would disrupt franchise, parent-subsidiary, and independent contractor relationships.   Companies large and small, particularly franchisors, worried that they could be held financially accountable for conduct at workplaces over which they had no direct oversight or control.

DOL’s announcement of June 7, 2017 rescinded the previously issued “guidance,” but stressed that it would continue to vigorously enforce the FLSA, MSWPA, and all other worker protection laws within its jurisdiction.  And even though DOL has changed its position, the Obama-era interpretation still may be invoked by the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”), the independent agency that is the government’s main labor law enforcer. The NLRB has held companies jointly liable for their contractors if they have “indirect” control over the terms and conditions of employment or have “reserved authority to do so.” To date, the NLRB has not modified its interpretation, but the Board currently has vacancies for two of its five seats which President Trump has yet to fill. 

Questions?  Need more information?  Call Larry Stine at (404-365-0900)

Related Content

Get Email Updates

Receive newsletters and alerts directly in your email inbox. Sign up below.

Recent Content

gavel

Judge Invalidates Joint Employer Rule, and Independent Contractor Rule Takes Effect

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Joint Employer Regulation, which was set to take effect March 11, 2024, was invalidated by a Te...
balance of justice statue

The Importance of Fairness in Employment to the Law and to Job Satisfaction

Some of you may have heard about disgruntled employees taping phone conversations of their discharge and mentioning them on social media ...
we the people, focus, document

Major Employers Challenge Constitutionality of Labor Act

Amazon is the most recent major employer to challenge the constitutionality of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRB), joining Trader Jo...
starbucks drink on a table

Starbucks' Big Change in Labor Policies

Starbucks' new public commitment to work with its union antagonists to resolve issues has been called a landmark in labor relations.  In ...
smiling blocks

Judge Orders Survey Data to Be Revealed from Employer EEO-1 Reports

Employers are supposed to file annually the EEO-1, Standard Form 100, with the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL).  This requirement applies ...
mcdonalds sign, blue sky

Featured Article at The Federalist Society: Franchise With That? McDonald’s No-Poach Agreements Receive Antitrust Scrutiny

Elizabeth K. Dorminey authored another article for the Federalist Society. Here's a quick summary of what this article, Franchise With ...