Client Alerts & Insights
Browning-Ferris Valid for Joint Employer Analysis Once Again
February 27, 2018
Authored By:
Just over two months after the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) reversed the Browning-Ferris decision that re-wrote the test the NLRB used for joint employment (see our December 15 alert here), the Board vacated its decision in Hy-Brand Industrial Contractors and reinstated Browning-Ferris.
In 2015, the NLRB established a joint employer test in Browning-Ferris that held that mere potential control over the working conditions of another employer’s employees was sufficient to find a joint employer relationship. In December 2017, the NLRB, with the recent addition of Board member William Emanuel, overturned Browning-Ferris in Hy-Brand. In Hy-Brand, the Board found that finding joint employer status required (1) that a putative joint employer exercised joint control, rather than merely having reserved the right to exercise control; (2) that the control is direct and immediate rather than indirect; and (3) that joint-employer status will not result from “limited and routine” control.
However, on February 9, NLRB Inspector General (“IG”) David Berry sent a report to Board members stating that Emanuel should not have participated in the Hy-Brand decision because his former law firm represented Leadpoint in the 2015 decision and the Hy-Brand case was essentially a direct continuation of Browning-Ferris. The IG stated that the deliberations in Hy-Brand involved the legal rights of the parties in Browning-Ferris meaning “for all intents and purposes … the vehicle to continue the deliberations of Browning-Ferris.”
On February 26, the Board unanimously vacated the Hy-Brand decision in light of the IG report, meaning that the Browning-Ferris joint-employer test is once again in place. The Board stated that its designated agency ethics official determined that Emanuel should have been disqualified from the proceeding, prompting the decision to vacate.
For more information on this topic, contact a member of Benesch’s Labor & Employment Practice Group.
Eric Baisden | ebaisden@beneschlaw.com | 216.363.4676
Peter Kirsanow | pkirsanow@beneschlaw.com | 216.363.4481
Steve Moss | smoss@beneschlaw.com | 216.363.4675
Adam Primm | aprimm@beneschlaw.com | 216.363.4451
Latest News
Passing the Baton: Checklist for In-House Lawyers Retaining New Trial Counsel on the Eve of Trial
Retaining new counsel on the cusp of trial is a momentous decision for any company that requires careful planning and coordination to ensure a smooth transition while maximizing the company’s chances of success in court.
Who Cares About the Wires: Texas Federal Court Rules that Certain Wire Fraud Charges Violate Due Process in Tax Case
A Texas federal court dismissed 13 wire fraud charges in a major tax shelter case, ruling that prosecutors cannot use the wire fraud statute to pursue conduct that should be charged under criminal tax laws, which require a higher standard of intent.
Texas Attorney General Targets Music Streaming “Payola”: What the Civil Investigative Demands Signal for Digital Platforms
On April 22, 2026, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton announced that he has issued Civil Investigative Demands (“CIDs”) to five major music streaming platforms—Spotify, Apple Music, Pandora, Amazon Music, and YouTube Music—launching an investigation into alleged “payola” schemes. According to the Attorney General’s office, the investigation “will examine whether streaming services have entered into undisclosed financial arrangements with record labels, promoters, or third parties to boost visibility, playlist placement, or recommendation rankings in violation of Texas law.”
One Battle After Another: Freight Brokers in a Post-Montgomery World
On May 14, 2026, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its anticipated decision in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC, sending shockwaves across the transportation industry.