Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Joint Employment and the Contingent Worker

By Robert G. Brody and Katherine M. Bogard
June 01, 2016

In today's global economy, many companies are staffing through employee brokers, leases, or temporary agencies, franchises and other non-traditional arrangements. For instance, in 2013, the U.S. Bureau of Labor and Statistics estimated that 2,673,800 workers were employed in the temporary help services industry. Many of these contingent arrangements result in third parties, such as the temporary staffing agency, employing the workers and not the company on whose behalf the work is being performed (the “putative joint employer,” i.e., where the temp is assigned). For instance, this is a common relationship that exists within the catering world in large metropolitan cities, such as New York City or alternatively in manufacturing distribution hubs, such as Memphis, TN. These arrangements generally allow the putative joint employer to minimize or even avoid functions such as recruiting, screening, hiring, paying workers, and complying with labor and employment laws. This avoidance, however, often comes with significant risks.

Over the last few years, government agencies have reacted to this trend by increasingly finding that both companies are employers and as such, both are jointly and severally liable for any issue involving the employees. The National Labor Relations Board, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) have long been on board with this outcome. Not one to be left out, the federal Department of Labor (DOL) recently issued instructive administrative guidance on this exact issue.

This premium content is locked for Employment Law Strategist subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later Image

The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.

The DOJ's New Parameters for Evaluating Corporate Compliance Programs Image

The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.

Use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements In White Collar Investigations Image

This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.

Bankruptcy Sales: Finding a Diamond In the Rough Image

There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.

Compliance Officers: Recent Regulatory Guidance and Enforcement Actions and Mitigating the Risk of Personal Liability Image

This article explores legal developments over the past year that may impact compliance officer personal liability.