EEOC Supports NLRB’s Joint-Employer Standard before DC Circ.

Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel LLP
Contact

On September 14, 2016 the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) filed an amicus brief in the D.C. Circuit expressing support for the National Labor Relations Board’s (“NLRB”) loosened standard of a joint employer. Under this loosened standard, a joint-employer relationship can exist if an employer exerted “indirect control” over the terms and conditions of employment. The NLRB’s previous joint-employer standard required a business to have “direct and immediate” control over the terms and conditions of employment. However, as explained previously in HR Legalist, this standard was expanded in Browning-Ferris when the NLRB concluded that BFI and a staffing agency were joint employers of workers at a BFI-owned recycling facility in Milpitas, California. Browning-Ferris Industries of California, Inc., 362 NLRB No. 186 (Aug. 27, 2015).

BFI subsequently appealed this decision, filing a brief in June criticizing the NLRB’s loosened standard. In its amicus brief in support of the NLRB, the EEOC stated the definitions of employer under Title VII and the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) are virtually identical. Accordingly, “the NLRB acted appropriately in bringing its joint-employer standard in line with the EEOC’s.” Admitting that its “flexible” joint-employer test like the NLRB’s contained more uncertainties than the previous standard, the EEOC stated “[u]ncertainty, however, is no basis for rejecting a rule that is consistent with statutory language, common law and legislative purpose.”

In light of Browning-Ferris and this most recent EEOC filing, one’s status as a potential joint-employer continues to be unclear. As always, HR legalist urges employers to consult legal counsel if you have any questions about how these recent developments may impact your business.


*The author would like to acknowledge Malcolm Ingram for providing assistance with the research and writing of this article.

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.

© Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel LLP
Contact
more
less

Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel LLP on:

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:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
- hide
- hide

This website uses cookies to improve user experience, track anonymous site usage, store authorization tokens and permit sharing on social media networks. By continuing to browse this website you accept the use of cookies. Click here to read more about how we use cookies.