Opinion ID: 784946
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Joint Employment Caselaw

Text: 18 There are no reported cases in this circuit (or any other, for that matter) addressing joint employment in the FMLA context. There are, however, reported joint employer cases arising under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (AWPA) that are informative. In fact, the FMLA employs a number of definitions from the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 2611(3), and the FMLA joint employer regulation mirrors the wording of the FLSA joint employment regulations. Compare 29 C.F.R. § 825.106 with 29 C.F.R. § 791.2(b). 19 In a FLSA case, Bonnette v. California Health and Welfare Agency, 704 F.2d 1465 (9th Cir.1983), we noted that the joint employment determination required consideration of the total employment situation, but focused primarily on four factors: whether the alleged employer (1) had the power to hire and fire employees, (2) supervised and controlled employee work schedules or conditions of payment, (3) determined the rate and method of payment, and (4) maintained employment records. Id. at 1470. 20 Applying these factors, we concluded that California state and county welfare agencies were joint employers of chore workers who provided domestic in-home services to the aged, blind and disabled. Id. A state program provided funding for the home services and, although the recipient was able to select the chore worker, the county determined the tasks to be performed, the number of hours per week required for those tasks, and verified the hours worked before disbursing payment. Id. at 1468. We explained that the agencies had complete economic control over the employment relationship and the economic reality was that the agency employed the chore workers to perform services for the benefit of the recipients. Id. at 1470. The district court's decision in this case focused on the four Bonnette factors. 21 More recently, we considered joint employment under the AWPA. 2 Torres-Lopez v. May, 111 F.3d 633 (9th Cir.1997). There, a cucumber grower contracted with Ag-Labor Services, a farm labor contractor, to supply laborers and supervise the harvesting of a cucumber crop. Id. at 637. Ag-Labor did not have a ready workforce and did not recruit farm-workers, but chose its workers from a group that would appear at the farm on harvest days. Id. The cucumber grower's representative established the harvest schedule and closely monitored the picking of the plants. Id. at 638. The grower also made a considerable financial investment in raising the cucumbers and provided most of the significant harvesting equipment, save some simple, hand-held tools. Id. at 643-44. 22 In Torres-Lopez, we followed Bonnette's direction to consider all factors relevant to the particular situation in evaluating the economic reality of an alleged joint employment relationship. 111 F.3d at 639 (quoting Bonnette, 704 F.2d at 1470). We considered a non-exhaustive list of factors set forth in the AWPA regulations, including: 23 (A) The nature and degree of control of the workers; 24 (B) The degree of supervision, direct or indirect, of the work; 25 (C) The power to determine the pay rates of the methods of payment of the workers; 26 (D) The right, directly or indirectly, to hire, fire, or modify the employment conditions of the workers; and 27 (E) Preparation of payroll and the payment of wages. 28 29 C.F.R. § 500.20(h)(4)(ii). We also identified a number of non-regulatory factors that may be relevant to deciding whether a joint employment relationship exists: 29
30 (2) whether responsibility under the contracts between a labor contractor and an employer pass from one labor contractor to another without material changes; 31 (3) whether the premises and equipment of the employer are used for the work; 32 (4) whether the employees had a business organization that could or did shift as a unit from one worksite to another; 33 (5) whether the work was piecework and not work that required initiative, judgment or foresight; 34 (6) whether the employee had an opportunity for profit or loss depending upon the alleged employee's managerial skill; 35 (7) whether there was permanence in the working relationship; and 36 (8) whether the service rendered is an integral part of the alleged employer's business. 37 Id. (internal citations and quotations omitted). 38 Based on a review of all these factors, Torres-Lopez concluded that the grower should be considered a joint employer with the labor contractor, because the grower exercised considerable control over the farmworkers and the farmworkers were economically dependent on the grower for their work. Id. at 644.