In Pro-Employer Move, Trump Administration Withdraws DOL Guidance Letters

05 July 2017 Labor & Employment Law Perspectives Blog
Authors: Patrick J. McMahon

President Trump’s reputation as a no-holds-barred businessman was one of the pillars of his campaign. Six months into office, Trump’s administration is showing its pro-business (or pro-employer) tendencies through recent Department of Labor (DOL) guidance. In this instance, it is the recent withdrawal of Obama administration guidance, rather than the issuance of new guidance, that demonstrates Trump’s and new Labor Secretary Acosta’s position. Both guidance withdrawals are decisively pro-employer.

Specifically, on June 7 the DOL withdrew two significant guidance letters issued during the Obama administration. While DOL guidance letters are not binding law, they give a strong indication of how the DOL interprets the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and similar federal employment statutes.  Importantly, this action also gives an indication how Secretary Acosta will approach labor issues in the future.  These indications are important, because Secretary Acosta had a mixed yet largely muted reception from both parties during his confirmation hearings and was endorsed by a number of unions.    In particular, he assured Democrats that he would put the interests of workers first. However, these letter withdrawals show that he is certainly mindful of employers’ needs as well.

The first withdrawn guidance letter, Administrator’s Interpretation No. 2015-1, was first issued in July 2015. It took the general position that most workers are employees rather than independent contractors. The guidance contained a multi-factor test to determine whether a worker was an employee or independent contractor—a test that did not provide a bright line for employers to follow.  Instead, the test focused on whether the worker was economically dependent on the employer or was in business for himself.  The rescission of this guidance letter, while not dispositive, permits employers with an enhanced ability to argue that workers qualify as independent contractors rather than employees.

The second withdrawn guidance letter, Administrator’s Interpretation No. 2016-01, was issued in January 2016. This letter addressed joint employment and how a company and its contractor could be joint employers if the company had a right to control the contractor, even if that right was never exercised.  This letter relaxed the previous standard that required some level of control over the contractor to actually be exercised over the contractor.  With the DOL’s withdrawal of guidance, it appears that the more relaxed standard will again apply.

These early signs should be welcome news for employers. Both of these issues imposed greater liabilities on businesses as it relates to their workers.  While Acosta may have touted a workers first mentality during the confirmation process, the Trump administration’s pro-business mentality is still managing to shine through.

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

Insights

Do You Know What IMMEX Stands For?
16 July 2019
Dashboard Insights
Does The U.S. Need STRONGER Patents?
16 July 2019
PTAB Trial Insights
California Establishes Fund to Combat Wildfire Threats
15 July 2019
Renewable Energy Outlook
There’s No Place Like Home – But Is That a Reasonable Accommodation?
15 July 2019
Labor & Employment Law Perspectives
Review of 2020 Medicare Changes for Telehealth
11 December 2019
Member Call
2019 NDI Executive Exchange
14-15 November 2019
Chicago, IL
MAGI’s Clinical Research Conference
29 October 2019
Las Vegas, NV
Association for Corporate Counsel Annual Meeting 2019
27-30 October 2019
Phoenix, AZ