joint employer doctrine

The U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce recently approved the “Save Local Business Act” (HR 3441 – Byrne).  If enacted, the Act would limit joint employer liability by reversing the rule announced by the NLRB in Browning-Ferris Industries, 362 NLRB No. 186.  The Browning-Ferris decision departed from 30 years

Janitorial services franchisor Jan-Pro Franchising International, Inc. (“Jan-Pro”) is not the employer of its unit franchisees, according to a recent California federal court decision. Roman v. Jan-Pro Franchising Int’l, Inc., No. C 16-05961 WHA (N.D. Cal. May 24, 2017). The plaintiff franchisees failed to show that Jan-Pro exercised sufficient control over their day-to-day employment

Browning-Ferris based claims against hotel franchisor Marriott International Incorporated (“Marriott”) will move forward, according to an Illinois federal court.  The suit seeks to hold Marriott liable as a joint employer for the actions of its franchisee’s employee–a hotel assistant manager who allegedly coerced housekeepers into sexual “servitude.”  Invoking the NLRB’s recent decision in Browning-Ferris Industries

Copyright: pixelery / 123RF Stock Photo
Copyright: pixelery / 123RF Stock Photo

We have written before about the NLRB’s efforts to adopt a “joint employer” doctrine. Specifically, the Board seems bound and determined to eliminate the legal distinction between franchisors and franchisees, at least with respect to who is the employer of the franchisee’s employees

Essentially,