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
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.