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
U.S. Trade Fraud Task Force Surpasses $1 Billion in Recoveries, Signaling Heightened Customs Enforcement
The Department of Justice (DOJ) announced a new inter-agency Trade Fraud Task Force (“Task Force”), designed to “aggressively pursue enforcement actions against any parties who seek to evade tariffs and other duties” and those who attempt to import prohibited goods following the DOJ’s identification of trade and customs fraud as a priority for prosecution.
Major Shift in Federal Labor Board’s Position on Restrictive Covenants
Non-compete agreements are no longer considered presumptively illegal under federal labor law. On June 26, 2026, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) released advice memoranda signaling this dramatic change in how the federal government views non-compete agreements in the workplace. This is welcome news for employers who use non-competes and similar restrictive covenants to protect their businesses.
Course of Performance as Contract Amendment or Waiver: When Business Practices Overrides Paper Terms
Imagine you are a leading manufacturing company, and you purchase a critical widget from a supplier. You have a carefully negotiated contract in place—one that spells out specific pricing, delivery timelines, and product specifications for those widgets.
California AG’s Carbon Health Settlement Raises the Stakes for MSO-PC Structures and Continuity Planning in California
The California Attorney General’s June 2026 settlement with Carbon Health marks the first-of-its kind resolution of an enforcement action directly targeting an MSO-PC structure under California’s corporate practice of medicine (“CPOM”) doctrine.