Opinion ID: 784946
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Basic Statutory and Regulatory Framework

Text: 6 The FMLA was enacted, in part, to balance the demands of the workplace with the needs of families ... in a manner that accommodates the legitimate interests of employers.... 29 U.S.C. § 2601(b). Eligible employees may take a maximum of twelve weeks unpaid leave for the birth of a child or in order to care for a seriously ill spouse, child or parent. Id. at § 2612(a)(1). 7 As part of a compromise in passing the legislation, Congress drafted a small employer exception, which excludes employers with fewer than 50 employees. Id. at § 2611(4)(A). An additional exception was created for small operations — that is, a potentially large company with a relatively small satellite office in a particular area. The statute specifically excludes from coverage an employee who is employed at a particular worksite if the employer has less than 50 employees within 75 miles of that worksite. Id. at § 2611(2)(B)(ii). This provision was designed to accommodate employer concerns about the difficulties that an employer might have in reassigning workers to geographically separate facilities. H.R.Rep. No. 102-135, pt. 1, at 37 (1991). In other words, it might be reasonable to expect an employer to relocate workers from nearby facilities for the period of an FMLA leave (such as reassigning someone temporarily from San Jose to San Francisco), but it would be understandably more difficult to reassign an employee whose family lives in Los Angeles to work in San Francisco for three months. 8 The FMLA does not contain any language specifically addressing the joint employment concept. Administrative regulations interpreting the FMLA, however, provide some guidance for when a joint employment status may be found to exist: 9 (a) Where two or more businesses exercise some control over the work or working conditions of the employee, the businesses may be joint employers under FMLA. Joint employers may be separate and distinct entities with separate owners, managers and facilities. Where the employee performs work which simultaneously benefits two or more employers, or works for two or more employers at different times during the workweek, a joint employment relationship generally will be considered to exist in situations such as: 10 (1) Where there is an arrangement between employers to share an employee's services or to interchange employees; 11 (2) Where one employer acts directly or indirectly in the interest of the other employer in relation to the employee; or, 12 (3) Where the employers are not completely disassociated with respect to the employee's employment and may be deemed to share control of the employee, directly or indirectly, because one employer controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with the other employer. 13 (b) A determination of whether or not a joint employment relationship exists is not determined by the application of any single criterion, but rather the entire relationship is to be viewed in its totality. For example, joint employment will ordinarily be found to exist when a temporary or leasing agency supplies employees to a second employer. 14 29 C.F.R. § 825.106(a) & (b). 15 The regulations distinguish between the primary employer and secondary employer: 16 In joint employment relationships, only the primary employer is responsible for giving required notices to its employees, providing FMLA leave, and maintenance of health benefits. Factors considered in determining which is the primary employer include authority/responsibility to hire and fire, assign/place the employee, make payroll and provide employment benefits. 17 Id. at § 825.106(c). If a joint employment relationship is found to exist, [e]mployees jointly employed by two employers must be counted by both employers, whether or not maintained on one of the employer's payroll, in determining employer coverage and employee eligibility. 29 C.F.R. § 825.106(d).