Source: http://www.mullinlawpc.com/2016/02/17/the-wage-and-hour-divisions-new-guidance-addressing-joint-employment/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 05:09:34+00:00

Document:
To determine whether an entity would qualify as a joint employer of a worker, Dr. Weil offered two analyses: horizontal and vertical joint employment. Horizontal joint employment analyzes the relationship and association between two or more entities that are technically separate but are related or overlapping employers, focusing on the relationship of the employers to each other. In the event that a joint employment relationship is established between the two entities, then the employee’s work for the two employers during the workweek is considered as “one employment” and the employers are jointly and severally liable for compliance of the FLSA, including complying with overtime compensation for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours.
While not intended to be a rigid test, the court explained that it is a “useful framework.” In addition to Bonnette, the Ninth Circuit has incorporated other factors into its joint employer analyses from the pre-1997 version of the MSPA joint employment regulation, and the eight economic realities factors set forth in Torres-Lopez, 111 F.3d 633, 640-41 (9th Cir. 1997). The Administrator’s Interpretation, more or less, approves of these and other formulations of the economic realities factors to determine the employee’s economic dependence on a potential joint employer.
whether the workers worked exclusively for the alleged joint employer.
whether the alleged employer owned the equipment.
These circuits have either not adopted a specific analysis for joint employer liability or have not yet meaningfully examined this issue under the FLSA.
 Administrator’s Interpretation No. 2016-1, SUBJECT: Joint employment under the Fair Labor Standards Act and Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act, United States Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division (Revised June 2014), accessed at http://www.dol.gov/whd/flsa/Joint_Employment_AI.htm (hereinafter “Administrator’s Interpretation No. 2016-1”).
 Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (MSPA), United States Department of Labor – Wage and Hour Division, http://www.dol.gov/whd/mspa (last accessed February 2, 2016).
 Id. (citing Antenor v. D & S Farms, 88 F.3d 925, 929 n. 5 (11th Cir. 1996).
 Id. (citing 29 C.F.R. 791.2(a)).
 See Administrator’s Interpretation No. 2016-1.
 See Cavallaro v. UMass Mem. Health Care, Inc., 971 F. Supp. 2d 139, 142 (D. Mass. 2013) (citing Baystate Alt. Staffing, Inc. v. Herman, 163, F.3d 668, 675 (1st Cir. 1998).
 Bonnette v. California Health and Welfare Agency, 704 F.2d 1465, 1470 (9th Cir. 1983).
 See Perez v. Lantern Light Corp., 2015 WL 3451268, at *17 (W.D. Wash. May 29, 2015).
 Zheng, 355 F.3d at 70.
 In re Enter. Rent-A-Car Wage & Hour Empl. Practices Litig., 683 F.3d 462, 468 (3d Cir. Pa. 2012).
 Id. at 468 (internal citations omitted).
 Administrator’s Interpretation No. 2016-1 (internal quotations omitted).
 See, e.g., Jennings v. Rapid Response Delivery, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65862, at *3 (D. Md. June 15, 2011); Jacobson v. Comcast Corp., 740 F. Supp. 2d 683 (Md. 2010).
 See Phillips v. M.I. Quality Lawn Maint., Inc., 2011 WL 666145 at *4 (S.D. Fla. 2011).
 Orozco v. Plackis, 757 F.3d 445, 453 (5th Cir. 2014).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.