Client Alerts & Insights
NLRB Finalizes Joint Employer Rule to Take Effect on April 27, 2020
February 25, 2020
Authored By:
The National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) announced this morning that its final rule outlining the legal test for determining a joint employer will be published in the federal register tomorrow, February 26, 2020, and become effective April 27, 2020. This is the latest, and possibly final, chapter in an ongoing five-year process to reinstate the long-standing “direct and immediate control” test that was overturned in the controversial Browning-Ferris Industries decision in 2015, which substantially expanded the scope of the test when it found an entity could be a joint employer by merely possessing indirect control or reserved authority to exert such control, even if it never exercised that reserved control. 362 NLRB No. 185.
The final rule reads as follows:
An employer […] may be considered a joint employer of a separate employer’s employees only if the two employers share or codetermine the employees’ essential terms and conditions of employment. To establish that an entity shares or codetermines the essential terms and conditions of another employer’s employees, the entity must possess and exercise such substantial direct and immediate control over one or more essential terms or conditions of their employment as would warrant finding that the entity meaningfully affects matters relating to the employment relationship with those employees.
Indirect control or contractually reserved but never exercised authority is only supportive of finding joint employer status where it supplements and reinforces evidence of direct and immediate control over an essential term and condition of employment. Essential terms and conditions include wages, benefits, hours of work, hiring, discharge, discipline, supervision, and direction.
Beginning with the election of President Trump, the NLRB began efforts to return to the “direct and immediate control” standard. In December 2017, the NLRB overruled Browning-Ferris in Hy-Brand Industrial Contractors, Ltd., 365 NLRB No. 156 (2017), returning to the direct and immediate control requirement (see alert here). However, just two months later, the NLRB vacated the Hy-Brand decision and reinstated Browning-Ferris after determining that Board member William Emanuel should have recused himself from the Hy-Brand decision (see alert here).
The NLRB then shifted its focus to rule-making and released a proposed rule in September 2018 to reverse Browning-Ferris (see alert here). The Department of Labor (“DOL”) followed suit and proposed a rule similarly revising its joint employer test in April 2019 (see alert here), which was finalized last month (see alert here).
All three members of the NLRB voted in favor of the rule. The other two seats are currently vacant.
For more information on the final rule, contact a member of Benesch’s Labor & Employment Practice Group.
Adam Primm at 216.363.4451 or aprimm@beneschlaw.com.
Latest News
The Coming State-Law Litigation Wave of 2026-27: “Subscription Trap” Class Actions
The subscription economy keeps growing—and so does the wave of class-action litigation targeting it. While the FTC’s regulatory efforts have drawn headlines, private class actions under state laws pose an even greater exposure risk.
Updates to Fees and Grace Periods for Nonimmigrant Visas
Starting September 9, 2026, the 9-11 Response Biometric Entry-Exit Fee will apply to H-1B and L-1 extension petitions filed by employers subject to the fee. Prior to the new rule, the fee was only required for (1) initial grant of status to a foreign national seeking H-1B or L-1 status and (2) a change of employer in the same status.
Third Circuit Decision Reshapes Creditor Standing in Successor Liability Disputes
The Third Circuit recently held that when determining whether a successor liability claim belongs to a bankruptcy estate, the key question is whether the claim seeks to remedy harm suffered by all creditors collectively or a unique injury suffered by a specific creditor. The fact that creditors may be permitted to bring the claim outside of bankruptcy is not, by itself, determinative.
CMS Proposes Sweeping Restrictions on Remote Patient Monitoring: The Outsourcing Ban, Reimbursement Revaluation and Potential Code Consolidation in the CY 2027 Physician Fee Schedule Proposed Rule
CMS’s CY 2027 Proposed Rule would significantly restrict Medicare reimbursement for Remote Patient Monitoring (RPM) and Remote Therapeutic Monitoring (RTM), including banning outsourced clinical staffing, adding new patient-relationship and initiating-visit requirements, reducing certain reimbursement rates, and exploring consolidation of existing billing codes.