Not a Member? Get access to HR news and resources that you can trust.
We asked HR professionals to tell us about their time in HR. Here are their stories.
Is your employee handbook keeping up with the changing world of work? With SHRM's Employee Handbook Builder get peace of mind that your handbook is up-to-date.
Instructor-led guidance for your SHRM-CP/SHRM-SCP exam, no travel or time out of the office required.
#SHRM18 will expand your perspective – on your organization, on your career, and on the way you approach HR. Join us in Chicago June 17-20, 2018
A recent ruling from the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals increases the likelihood that companies will be considered joint employers along with their contractors.
Although the decision directly affects only businesses in New York, Connecticut and Vermont, it is sure to influence courts in jurisdictions throughout the country. As a result, it is potentially significant for all businesses that subcontract out some aspect of their work.
The court’s decision in
Zheng v. Liberty Apparel Co. (No. 02-7826, Dec. 30, 2003), clarifies the standard by which companies may be held liable for the wage and hour violations of subcontractors under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
Historically, most lower courts have focused on the issue of “control” over the subcontractor’s employees when determining joint employer status. In fact, the 2nd Circuit itself used a control test in prior decisions but took a different course in Zheng.
In this case, the plaintiffs worked for a factory that contracted with various garment manufacturers, including Liberty Apparel, to sew some of the manufacturers’ goods. The workers sued both the garment factory and Liberty under the FLSA and state law, alleging overtime and minimum wage violations. The district court, applying the existing “control” test, held that Liberty was not the joint employer of the garment factory’s workers.
But the 2nd Circuit said its own prior control test was too narrow and could not be reconciled with the FLSA’s broad definition of employment. The court concluded that the existence of “control” is not necessary to determine joint employment. Rather, the court focused on six factors:
Zheng’s impact will depend on how it is applied by lower courts and those in other jurisdictions. However, in moving away from a strict “control” test, the ruling increases the risk that businesses will be considered joint employers.
The ruling may particularly affect businesses in industries where subcontracting has historically been used to circumvent labor laws, even if in a given situation the outsourcing is not intended to be used in such a manner. Note also that it is unclear whether contractual indemnification clauses that purport to shift wage liability away from a joint employer are enforceable.
Marc A. Mandelman is a senior associate in the New York office of Proskauer Rose LLP, where he specializes in labor and employment relations. Recently, he represented clients in three major class action overtime cases in which the central issue was joint employer status.
SHRM Featured Article:
Are your Contractors Legal (HR Magazine)
You have successfully saved this page as a bookmark.
Please confirm that you want to proceed with deleting bookmark.
You have successfully removed bookmark.
Please log in as a SHRM member before saving bookmarks.
Your session has expired. Please log in again before saving bookmarks.
Please purchase a SHRM membership before saving bookmarks.
An error has occurred
Recommended for you
Join SHRM's exclusive peer-to-peer social network
SHRM’s HR Vendor Directory contains over 3,200 companies