Another Joint Employer Test Makes Its Debut

06 February 2017 Labor & Employment Law Perspectives Blog
Authors: Paul R. Monsees

On January 25, 2017, a federal appeals court that covers Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, and North and South Carolina was the latest to craft a joint employer test, holding that a Maryland general contractor was the joint employer of its drywall subcontractor’s employees. As a result, the contractor was responsible for unpaid wages, including overtime, for the sub’s employees.

Faced with facts that were very unfavorable for the contractor, the court decided that a joint employment relationship between companies exists when they share or in some way “co-determine … the essential terms and conditions of a worker’s employment” and if the worker involved is an employee and not an independent contractor. In doing so, the court relied on Fair Labor Standards Act regulations, which require examining whether the two potential employers are “entirely independent” and “completely disassociated” from each other with respect to a person’s employment. Unfortunately for the contractor, it appears that it did not have a snowball’s chance of proving that it was “entirely independent” or “completely disassociated” from the sub with respect to the workers involved.

The facts in this case were not particularly good for the general contractor. The subcontractor performed almost all of its work for the general contractor and had only one other client for whom it only worked when the general contractor had no jobs available. The general contractor provided the tools, equipment, and materials used by the sub’s employees; actively supervised and, in some ways, directed the sub’s workers; required them to attend meetings about work and safety protocols; required them to sign in and out each day on the general contractor’s timesheets; and, among other things, provided the workers with stickers, vests, and sweatshirts bearing the general contractor’s logo. Worse, the general contractor instructed the sub’s workers to tell anyone who asked that they worked for the general contractor, rather than the sub.

Based on this evidence, the court reviewed “joint employer” tests applied by other courts, reversed the lower court — which ruled in the general contractor’s — favor and established its own test, identifying a non-exclusive list of six factors to consider in evaluating the “joint employer” issue. The factors included:

  • Whether and how the two companies, either formally or in practice, “direct, control, or supervise the worker …”
  • Whether and how the two companies hire, fire, or modify the terms or conditions of employment
  • “ … the degree of permanency and duration of the relationship” between the two companies
  • Whether one of the companies controls the other
  • Whether the work is performed on premises owned or controlled by one of the companies
  • Whether and how the two companies control “functions ordinarily carried out by an employer” including payroll, providing facilities and equipment, providing workers’ comp insurance, etc.

Pretty broad list, right? In fact, the court emphasized that one of these factors alone, or any other facts showing that one company “shares or codetermines terms and conditions” of employment, can point the needle to “joint employer” status, even assuming that the two companies generally have a legitimate contractor/subcontractor/vendor relationship.

Other courts have applied different tests. And, as we have reported, a federal court in the District of Columbia is also considering a joint employer test in Browning Ferris v. NLRB in the context of a union election. While the outcome in cases like this recent one may be easy to predict, it is more difficult to evaluate if and when companies may cross the line to joint employer land when there is much less control exerted than in the case described here, or when that control is theoretically reserved, but not exercised. One thing seems certain in states where this decision applies — plaintiffs now have a broader, more employee-friendly test at their disposal.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services