The NLRB Rings in the New Year by Unringing a Few Bells

Over the last month, we have seen a number of significant restorations of status quo antes. These have come in the form of reverting to earlier precedent, regulations, or guidance. Without further ado, we present some of the more notable developments: More ›

In Victory for Employers, NLRB Overrules Browning-Ferris Joint Employment Test

On December 14, 2017, the National Labor Relations Board (Board) overruled the standard for joint employment set forth in Browning-Ferris and returned to longstanding, prior principles governing the determination of joint-employer status. With a new majority, the Board held “joint-employer status shall once again require proof that putative joint employer entities have exercised joint control over essential employment terms (rather than merely having “reserved” the right to exercise control); the control must be “direct and immediate” (rather than indirect), and joint-employer status will not result from control that is “limited and routine.”  The Board made clear it intended to align the determination of joint-employer status with the holdings of numerous federal and state courts. Although finding Browning-Ferris well-intentioned, the Board identified five fundamental flaws that warranted reversal. The Board’s decision is being widely viewed as a victory for employers as it removes ambiguities related to control and clarifies the standard for determining joint employment. More ›

Peering into Hinshaw’s Crystal Ball: How the Trump Administration May Affect Labor and Employment Landscape

With the election of Donald Trump and transition to a Republican administration looming, employers are scrambling to predict what impact Trump will have on labor and employment policy and enforcement initiatives. What employers can expect in the first 12 months of a Trump Administration is unclear, but there likely will be change in the following areas: More ›

NLRB Makes it Easier to Unionize Temporary Workers

On Monday, the National Labor Relations Board made it easier for unions to organize temporary workers in a 3-1 decision in the case Miller & Anderson. In doing so, the Board reversed its ruling in Oakwood Care Center, 343 NLRB 659 (2004) and returned to the standard established in M.B. Sturgis, Inc., 331 NLRB 1298 (2000).  More ›

Is Labor Law Putting the Franchise Business Model at Risk?

Over the course of the last year, we have kept you abreast of National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) case law and Department of Labor (DOL) interpretive/enforcement guidance, how these agencies are changing their view of the responsibility of parent corporations for the employment relationship between employees of temporary agencies and franchises, and how these changes have the potential to drastically alter the benefits and risks of utilizing these relationships.

In what could become one of the most enlightening applications yet of this emerging shift, an NLRB hearing before an administrative law judge began last week in involving allegations by workers that McDonald's is responsible as a joint employer for the alleged labor law violations of its franchisees. The franchisors are alleged to have threatened, disciplined, or fired franchise employees who participated in widely-publicized campaigns for collective bargaining and a $15 minimum wage. More ›

Joint Employer Standard Expanded: NLRB Overturns 30 Years of Precedent

In a dramatic departure from over 30 years of precedent, the National Labor Relations Board has modified the standard by which it determines whether two entities are "joint employers" under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The 3-2 ruling in Browning-Ferris Industries of California, published on August 27, 2015, has serious implications for companies that utilize staffing agencies and temporary employees, and for the staffing agencies themselves. The ruling greatly increases the ability of workers to bargain with both their employer and the company that hires their employer and to hold both companies responsible for various wrongs.  More ›

Aching Joints: Franchisor Avoids Liability for Franchisee's Labor Disputes

Any time an employer is involved in a franchise relationship, there are bound to be unique issues when legal disputes arise, particularly in the employment context. It is no longer surprising to see the names of any and all related entities captioned as the defendant in an employment lawsuit, and this includes franchisors who may have absolutely no relationship with or control over the employer's employees. More ›

Employee's case Dismissed After Suing Wrong Employer Defendant

Often times, employees name parent companies and other affiliated entities when suing their employers, seeking to hold responsible anyone and everyone who could possibly be construed to be the "employer" for the purposes of employment law related claims. That plan backfired on a New York employee, after she attempted to recover from a holding company who really had no employment relationship with the employee. More ›

Seventh Circuit Finds no ADA Liability for Employer not Involved in Decisionmaking

Joyce Whitaker began working for Milwaukee County as a corrections officer in 2001. In 2005, she sustained a work-related back injury and subsequently was diagnosed with several related medical conditions. As a result, her physician imposed permanent work restrictions and limitations in a number of basic tasks, including sitting, standing and walking. After receiving the restrictions, the County transferred Whitaker to a new position to accommodate her disability. More ›