29 U.S.C. s ; see 29 C.F.R. s (b). . invoked Spirides to resolve an issue of joint employment, although the Fifth Circuit has done so, see Fields v. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 29 — Labor Chapter V — Wage and Hour 29 CFR PART JOINT EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIP UNDER FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT .. Occasional or sporadic employment — section 7(p)(2). 29 . For references to the meaning of the employment relationship, please see revised Fact Sheet 13, the . See 29 CFR Part ; 29 CFR (h); Charles v. II. Consumer-Directed Medicaid Programs and Joint Employment.
And, seventh, whether the employer performs administrative functions commonly performed by employers: Again, the more control, the more likely a second employer is a joint employer. As a practical matter, it can be changed at any time, especially under a different secretary of labor.
And indeed, there is reason to think that another administration may depart from this broad standard. The current regulations allow for joint employment in one of only three circumstances: Ultimately, of course, this AI is subject to review and reversal by the court.
Indeed, many employment lawyers think that is likely to happen. So, who should be paying attention to this AI?
Nebraska Business and Employment Law: Overtime for Related Employers
First and foremost, any employer who uses staffed employees should consider itself on notice that the department has their sights set on them. In addition, the department is likely to focus on employers that are a part of franchises. Few employment lawyers question that the department would find the same. And what should an employer do if the department is targeting it as a joint employer?
That company should not operate under the belief that it will be insulated from liability because its employees are provided by a staffing company. Both the staffing company and the end user will be jointly liable for ensuring that employees are being paid properly.
Joint employment the DOL way: ‘as broad as possible’ | Employment Law Daily
Under the FLSA, that means that employees are being paid at least the minimum wage and that nonexempt employees are being paid overtime consistent with the law. The Prince's personnel staff also handled such details as scheduling, compensation, discipline, and termination of the bodyguards. Capital International Security had little involvement in these matters.
Although Capital International Security provided the bodyguards with some equipment, the Prince provided cars, cellphones, cameras and office supplies. At one point Capital International Security made a half-hearted attempt to convert bodyguards from employees into independent contractors. The Fourth Circuit had no trouble seeing past the ruse, and coming to the obvious conclusion that the bodyguards were truly employees.
From a PEO point of view the more interesting questions related to whether the bodyguards could only sue Capital International Security, the Prince or both. The Fourth Circuit began by quoting from the FLSA joint employment regulations "all joint employers are responsible, both individually and jointly, for compliance with all of the applicable provisions of" the Fair Labor Standards Act. In addition, joint employment must be determined by taking "into account the real economic relationship between the employer who uses and benefits from the services of the workers and the party that hires or assigns the workers to that employer.
29 CFR Part 791 - JOINT EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIP UNDER FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT OF 1938
The Court thus found that Capital International Security was jointly and severally liable for the unpaid overtime owed the Plaintiffs. As in a PEO arrangement, the Prince i. The regulations make this determination by the Fourth Circuit easy: If the facts establish that the employee is employed jointly by two or more employers, i.