Background and Earlier Rescission of the Previous Rule
In March 2020, the NLRB’s previous final rule provided updated guidance for determining joint employer status in specific situations. Specifically, the rule applied when an employee performed work for their employer that simultaneously benefited another individual or entity. Additionally, the rule included guidance on identifying factors that would not be relevant when determining joint employer status. The 2020 final rule stated that a putative joint employer must “possess and exercise . . . substantial direct and immediate control” over essential terms and conditions of employment. Notably, the rule failed to consider any Department of Labor (DOL) joint employment guidance issued before 2017. The NLRB noted that the rule’s stipulations had no foundation in common law. Given that, the NLRB rescinded the prior 2020 final rule.Latest Joint Employer Final Rule
In adopting the latest final rule, the NLRB stated that the new rule more faithfully grounded the joint employer standard in established common law principles. In particular, the final rule considered a possible joint employer’s authority to control essential terms and conditions of employment:- whether or not it exercises that control; and
- regardless of whether such control is direct or indirect.
- wages, benefits, and other compensation;
- work hours and scheduling;
- ability to assign duties;
- responsibility to supervise duties;
- work rules and directions governing the manner, means, and methods to perform duties, as well as discipline;
- the ability to hire and discharge employees; and
- control of working conditions related to workplace safety hazards.
Reasons for Vacating the Latest Joint Employer Rule
As has been noted, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas struck down what was known as the “2023 Joint Employer Final Rule.” According to Littler Mendelson P.C., by vacating the 2023 Joint Employer Final Rule, the district court:- declared the 2023 regulations to be contrary to established law, as they went beyond the bounds of the common-law definition of employment; and
- claimed the 2023 rule rescinded the original 2020 “arbitrarily and capriciously” under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).