The Association joined coalition comments and filed its own letter in support of the Department of Labor’s joint employer Proposed Rule.
The bottom line: The rule appropriately limits joint employer status to relationships in which the employer exercises direct control over the third party’s employees’ terms and conditions of employment.
The proposed rule: The DOL introduced the Proposed Rule earlier this year. Similar to a rule promulgated during the first Trump administration, the Proposed Rule creates a simple, four-factor framework for evaluating joint employer liability based on directly exercised control. The legal standard for joint employer status has ping-ponged back and forth over several administrations dating back to the 2010s.
Our comments: The Association joined coalition comments filed by the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace and filed its own letter in support of the Proposed rule. Our comments emphasized the importance of creating a clear, durable standard for a historically murky area of labor and employment law. Highlights include:
-
We supported the Proposed Rule’s four-factor framework, which appropriately focuses on directly exercised control over indirect, hypothetical, or reserved control.
-
Our letter encouraged the DOL to clarify that boilerplate contractual provisions, such as benefits standards, codes of conduct, or minimum safety standards are not indicative of joint employer status.
Why it matters: Broad joint employer standards can make employers legally responsible for violations by contractors, franchisees or other third parties even when they have little to no actual control over these workers. Based on decades of established judicial precedent, the Proposed Rule would create a narrower standard, so that businesses would be treated as joint employers only in clear, well-defined circumstances.
What’s next: A final rule is expected before the end of the year. The previous Trump administration’s rule was eventually struck down in court, in part for being too narrow and restrictive. This version was slightly broadened to avoid a similar outcome but expect litigation that could delay implementation.
Meanwhile, House Democrats, led by Ranking Member Bobby Scott (D-VA) submitted a letter to Acting Labor Secretary Keith Sonderling calling for the rule’s withdrawal. The letter claims that the rule encourages noncompliance with labor law and undermines worker protections.
