Joint Employer Status under the Fair Labor Standards Act, Family and Medical Leave Act, and Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act

A coalition of 29 organizations is opposing the Department of Labor's proposed rule on joint employer status, arguing that it improperly narrows the standard for determining joint employment. They contend that the rule undermines statutory protections for workers—particularly women in "fissured" workplaces—by allowing companies to avoid liability for wage theft and other labor violations.

The International Franchise Association (IFA) supports the Department of Labor's Proposed Rule, arguing that it provides much-needed clarity and predictability for the franchise business model. They emphasize that the rule correctly distinguishes between necessary brand and quality control and the actual day-to-day management of employees, which is essential for protecting small business independence and preventing "defensive distancing" by franchisors.

The American Hotel and Lodging Association (AHLA) supports the Department of Labor's proposed rule because it establishes a clearer, more predictable framework for determining joint-employer status based on actual control over employment terms. They specifically commend the rule's recognition that common hospitality practices—such as franchising, brand standards, and safety requirements—do not inherently establish joint-employer liability.

The Coalition for a Democratic Workplace, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and a large group of trade associations support the Proposed Rule for joint employer status. They argue that the rule provides much-needed predictability for business-to-business relationships and request specific modifications to clarify that certain contractual arrangements do not create joint-employment liability.

The American Association of Franchisees & Dealers (AAFD) supports the Department's effort to establish a clear and predictable joint employer standard. They argue that a stable rule is necessary to prevent franchisors from withdrawing essential support resources from franchisees due to fear of liability, and they advocate for a standard based on direct and immediate control over essential employment terms rather than reserved contractual rights or economic dependence.

The Institute for the American Worker (I4AW), a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, supports the Proposed Rule because it provides regulatory clarity and a consistent four-factor test for joint employer status across the FLSA, FMLA, and MSPA. They argue that the rule protects essential business models like franchising and staffing by distinguishing between actual employer control and ordinary commercial relationships, such as brand protection or safety compliance.

Associated Builders and Contractors, a national construction industry trade association, supports the Department of Labor's proposed rule to clarify joint-employer status under the FLSA and other statutes. They argue that the rule correctly adopts the Bonnette test and request specific language to ensure that routine construction practices, such as safety monitoring and site coordination, do not inadvertently result in joint-employer findings.

SHRM, an organization representing HR professionals and business executives, supports the proposed rule on joint employer status because it provides the regulatory clarity and consistency needed for workforce planning. They argue that the rule's focus on actual practice over reserved rights and its distinction between vertical and horizontal joint employment will help businesses manage third-party labor arrangements without facing undue liability.

The CHRO Association, which represents chief human resource officers of large employers, supports the Proposed Rule for establishing a clear and uniform federal standard for joint employer status. They argue that legal certainty is necessary to prevent costly litigation and encourage investment, and they provide specific recommendations to ensure that routine contractual boilerplate does not trigger joint employer status.

The Worker and Farmer Labor Association (WAFLA), a nonprofit membership association for agricultural employers, supports the Department's goal of establishing a clear joint employer framework. They argue that liability should be based on actual authority over core employment functions (like hiring and payroll) rather than the coordination required for agricultural production or H-2A program compliance.