Opinion ID: 165332
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The FMLA regulation defining worksite

Text: 36 Congress granted the Secretary of Labor the authority to prescribe such regulations as are necessary to carry out the FMLA. 29 U.S.C. § 2654. The regulation at issue in this case, 29 C.F.R. § 825.111(a)(3), defines the worksite of an employee who is jointly employed by two or more employers as follows: 37 For purposes of determining that employee's eligibility, when an employee is jointly employed by two or more employers (see § 825.106), the employee's worksite is the primary employer's office from which the employee is assigned or reports. The employee is also counted by the secondary employer to determine eligibility for the secondary employer's full-time or permanent employees. 38 Id. § 825.111(a)(3). Section 825.106(a) states that two entities may be considered joint employers where they both exercise some control over the work or working conditions of the employee. Id. § 825.106(a). For example, joint employment will ordinarily be found to exist when a temporary agency supplies employees to a second employer. Id. § 825.106(b). In joint employment relationships, the primary employer is the only employer responsible for providing FMLA leave. Id. § 825.106(c). The primary employer is determined by considering such factors as the authority to hire and fire, assign/place the employee, make payroll, and provide employment benefits. Id. 39 In this case, the district court identified Plaintiff as jointly employed by both Defendant and Sunset Manor, applied § 825.111(a)(3), and defined Defendant as Plaintiff's primary employer. None of this is at issue in this appeal. What is at issue is whether § 825.111(a)(3) is a valid regulation implementing the FMLA.