Do You Know Who Your Employees Are? Joint Employer Liability Under the FLSA and Other Employment Laws

by Dechert LLP

Dechert LLP

As private equity firms become more involved in the operations of their portfolio companies, they are increasingly at risk of being deemed joint employers of their portfolio companies’ employees, leaving private equity firms jointly and severally liable for violations of employment laws and vulnerable to disruptive obligations ranging from ongoing litigation to potential union bargaining obligations. One such area of risk is wage and hour laws. Recent years have brought an uptick in litigation by employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), the federal wage-and-hour law of general application, and its state law counterparts. Employees are increasingly looking beyond their official “employer” for recoupment (and to potentially expand the class of plaintiffs in a class or collective action), seeking to hold parents, franchisors, service recipients, individual management personnel, and other affiliated entities jointly and severally liable for any alleged violations. If an entity is found to be a joint employer of an employee under employment laws such as the FLSA, each joint employer is jointly and severally liable for any violations of the applicable law. 

The definition of “employer” under the FLSA is exceedingly broad and includes “any person acting directly or indirectly in the interest of an employer in relation to an employee.” In turn, the definition of “employ” includes to “suffer or permit to work” and the definition of “employee” means “any individual employed by an employer,”1 which has been described as “’the broadest definition that has ever been included in any one act.’”2 These broad definitions have led the federal Department of Labor (“DOL”) to conclude that the concept of joint employment under the FLSA should be correspondingly broad, meaning the DOL (and courts subscribing to a similarly broad view of "employment" under the FLSA) is hesitant to dismiss entities related to an official employer from a wage-and-hour dispute.

In instances where an employee performs work for both a private equity firm and one or more of its portfolio companies, it is certainly likely that the private equity firm will be found to be a joint employer of the employee, at least under the FLSA. Such a finding is less certain where an employee does not directly perform services for a private equity firm or other parent, but the private equity firm or other parent is involved in the operation of its portfolio company or subsidiary. Courts and the DOL look to the economic realities of the situation to determine how economically dependent the employee is to the alleged joint employer in these circumstances, but tests differ among the courts and the DOL.

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals, for example, says the key inquiry is whether the alleged employer exerts “significant control,” and requires the court to consider all the relevant factors in that inquiry, including “1) the alleged employer's authority to hire and fire the relevant employees; 2) the alleged employer's authority to promulgate work rules and assignments and to set the employees' conditions of employment: compensation, benefits, and work schedules, including the rate and method of payment; 3) the alleged employer's involvement in day-to-day employee supervision, including employee discipline; and 4) the alleged employer's actual control of employee records, such as payroll, insurance, or taxes.”3 In the Enterprise case in which this test was announced, for example, the court found that a parent was not a joint employer of its subsidiaries’ employees. Although the boards of each subsidiary were composed of the same three individuals who sat on the parent’s board, and the parent provided certain back office functions for the subsidiary, this was not sufficient to establish a joint employer relationship. In reaching its conclusion, the Third Circuit focused on the fact that policies and procedures given by the parent to the subsidiaries were recommendations, not requirements, that the subsidiaries could choose to follow or not.

Other courts and the DOL, however, have applied broader tests. The DOL issued a detailed administrative interpretation earlier this year addressing joint employment under the FLSA and concluded that focusing too much on control, like the Third Circuit did, “is not consistent with the breadth of employment under the FLSA.”4 The DOL noted that other factors should be considered, such as the permanency and duration of the relationship, the repetitive and rote nature of the work, the degree to which the employee’s work is an integral part of the alleged joint employer’s business, whether the employee performs his or her work on the alleged joint employer’s premises, and whether the alleged joint employer performs administrative functions for the employee (e.g., handling payroll and providing workers’ compensation insurance). Courts within the Second Circuit, which includes federal courts in New York and Connecticut, similarly apply a test that looks beyond the control exerted by the alleged joint employer over the employee. Under these tests, it may have been a closer question as to whether the relationship addressed by the Third Circuit constituted joint employment. 

The FLSA is not the only employment law with which private equity firms should be concerned. Joint employment can arise under many employment laws. In August 2015, for example, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) dealt another blow to the employer community with its long-awaited decision in Browning-Ferris Industries of California, Inc., 362 NLRB No. 186 (Aug. 27, 2015). In Browning-Ferris, the NLRB considered what standard should apply in determining which entities employ a worker and are thus obligated to bargain with the labor representative of such worker. It loosened its existing joint employment standard, making private equity firms and other alleged joint employers more easily susceptible to union organizing efforts, bargaining obligations, and the jurisdiction of the NLRB. The new standard proceeds through two inquiries, both focused on the degree of control the putative joint employer exercises:

  1. Is there a common law employment relationship between the alleged joint employer and the workers in question, and

  2. If so, does the alleged joint employer possess sufficient control over the workers’ essential terms and conditions of employment. Essential terms and conditions of employment include matters such as wages, hours of work, and discipline. 

Departing from its existing standard, and particularly alarming for the management community, was the NLRB’s pronouncement that the alleged joint employer need not actually exercise control directly. Retained, but unexercised, control can be sufficient, as noted in the dissent’s argument that the new standard threatens to treat every parent as an employer of its subsidiaries’ employees. An entity can now be deemed a joint employer under the National Labor Relations Act if it has the ability to control essential terms and conditions of employment, even if the control is rarely or never exercised. In addition, such control can be exercised indirectly through intermediaries. 

The application of these principles was well demonstrated by the facts presented in Browning-Ferris, which involved an owner and operator of a recycling facility that contracted with a temporary services firm to provide employees for the facility. Central to the NLRB’s determination that the owner and operator was a joint employer with the staffing agency was the parties’ contract. Although that contract provided that the workers were solely employed by the staffing agency, the contract gave the facility certain rights that are typical in a staffing services agreement, including the right to reject personnel, determine the operating hours and shifts at the facility, specify the number of employees needed, and require certain minimum qualifications and screenings for provided workers. The NLRB’s decision is currently on appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

As a practical matter, as long as a portfolio company is sufficiently solvent, it may not matter much from a purely financial perspective whether a private equity firm is found jointly and severally liable with its portfolio company as a joint employer. The bigger risk is the inevitable disruption caused by being named in a lawsuit, which imposes obligations relating to document preservation, discovery, and time devoted to matters other than running the business. In addition, while any particular portfolio company may have few to no employment disputes at any given time, the disruption can be magnified for the private equity firm if it is named in lawsuits of multiple portfolio companies and may have a small staff to start, or if it is determined to have union bargaining obligations. Indirect financial impacts may also be felt, such as in increased insurance premiums. 

There are several steps private equity firms and other potential joint employers can take now to help prevent a lawsuit later, or, at minimum, increase the likelihood of an early exit if named as a defendant in an employment suit based on a joint employment theory. They include:

  • Take a break. The strongest indicia of joint employment under many employment laws is the degree of involvement and control by the alleged joint employer in the operations of the official employer, especially the operations relating to the official employer’s employees. To the maximum extent possible, portfolio companies should be free to set their policies and procedures and make decisions regarding their workforce, including decisions relating to compensation, discipline, and hiring. If a private equity firm makes employment policies available to its portfolio companies, such as an employee handbook for use at the portfolio companies, use of the policies should be discretionary.

  • Make your paperwork work for you. If a contract between parties is determined to be necessary, to the extent possible, include provisions that will not increase the likelihood of a joint employment finding. By way of example, in a services agreement where a private equity firm contractually agrees to provide certain back office functions for a portfolio company, limit the contractual decision-making authority granted to the private equity firm. Contractual language reserving ultimate authority to the private equity firm can be used by plaintiffs in seeking to hold the private equity firm liable for alleged shortcomings of the portfolio company, perhaps regardless of whether such authority is actually exercised. On the other hand, contractual language can help to limit the likelihood that one entity will be deemed a joint employer with another entity with respect to employees. The contract should make clear that the portfolio company is the sole employer of its workers and that there is no employment relationship between the private equity firm and the portfolio company’s employees. This language is not dispositive, and the DOL has gone so far as to say that a provision of this type “is not relevant” to its inquiry of whether a joint employment relationship exists, but inclusion of the language certainly does not diminish the likelihood of defeating an allegation of joint employment. In addition, the portfolio company should retain full discretion to make all employment decisions with respect to its workforce. 

  • Apportion the risk upfront. Consider including an indemnification clause in any contracts whereby the official employer agrees to indemnify the potential joint employer for any liabilities arising from the employment of any employee. While such clauses may not always be effective in shifting liability, depending on the allegations and laws at issue, they can help to limit liability in certain contexts.


1) 29 U.S.C. § 203.

2) United States v. Rosenwasser, 323 U.S. 360, 363 n.3 (1945) (quoting 81 Cong. Rec. 7657 (1938) (statement of Sen. Hugo Black)). 

3) In re Enter. Rent-A-Car Wage & Hour Employment Practices Litig., 683 F.3d 462, 469 (3d Cir. 2012). 

4) U.S. Dep’t of Labor Wage and Hour Division Administrator’s Interpretation No. 2016-1, at 13-14 (Jan. 20, 2016).


DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Dechert LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Dechert LLP

Dechert LLP on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.


JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at:

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.