July 8, 2020

Volume X, Number 190

July 07, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

July 06, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

Employers Take Note: Federal Agencies Issue Wage & Hour and Retaliation Guidance

The start of the New Year has brought about a flurry of federal administrative agency activity, including guidance from the Department of Labor (DOL) on the joint employer standard to be used for wage and hour matters, as well as proposed guidance from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) clarifying its position on retaliation under federal employment discrimination laws. Employers should take note of this and other administrative activity that is expected during President Obama’s final year in office, and the impact they may have on day-to-day business operations. 

DOL’s Wage & Hour Guidance on the Joint Employer Standard

On January 20, 2016, DOL issued guidance establishing two new standards for finding a joint employment relationship under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Migrant Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (MSPA)—federal wage and hour statutes that require employers to pay a minimum wage and overtime to employees. The guidance is in response to the continuing trend by businesses to move away from the traditional one employer for one employee model to alternative organizational and staffing models. In order to better address these alternative staffing models, the DOL proposes the following standards: (1) the horizontal joint employment standard, and (2) the vertical joint employment standard:

Horizontal Joint Employment Standard

A horizontal joint employment relationship exists where an employee has employment relationships with two or more employers and the employers are sufficiently associated or related such that they jointly employ the employee. Factors that may suggest a horizontal joint employment relationship include: common ownership, overlapping supervisors, shared control over operations, intermingled business operations, shared supervision of employees, shared employee workforces, shared clients or customers, and the existence of agreements between the potential joint employers. Examples of horizontal joint employment may include restaurants that share economic ties and have the same managers controlling both restaurants, or home health care providers that share staff and have common management. 

Vertical Joint Employment Standard

A vertical joint employment relationship exists where an employee has a formal employment relationship with one employer, but the economic realities show that the employee is economically dependent on, and thus, employed by, another entity involved in the work. The most common example of vertical joint employment is the staffing agency model, where individuals employed by an agency perform services for a client of the agency.

Generally, the vertical joint employment analysis focuses on factors such as: whether the potential joint employer directs, controls or supervises the work performed, or controls the working conditions; the degree of permanency and duration of the relationship of the parties; the extent to which work is repetitive, requiring relatively little training; whether the work is integral to the potential joint employer’s business; where the work is performed; and whether the potential joint employer performs employment-related administrative functions.

The consequences of a joint employment finding may be devastating to a business. Joint employers are jointly and severally liable for compliance with the FLSA and/or MPSA, meaning that each joint employer is individually responsible, for example, for the minimum wage and/or overtime violations of a staffing agency, for instance, even though the client may never know about the violation.    

Accordingly, companies that might be considered “joint employers”—namely, those employers relying on contracted labor or personnel from staffing agencies or with relationships with affiliated companies in a corporate family—should take heed of the DOL’s guidance and audit their compensation and pay practices.

EEOC Proposed Guidance on Retaliation

On January 21, 2016, the EEOC issued proposed guidance clarifying its position on what constitutes retaliation under federal employment discrimination laws, such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act. The proposed guidance expands what constitutes retaliation, from the EEOC’s perspective.

For instance, although the proposed guidance adopts the traditional elements of retaliation—(1) protected activity by the employee, (2) adverse action taken by the employer, and (3) a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse employment action—it also seeks to make it easier for employees to establish a “causal connection.” Under the current causal connection standard, a complaining employee must show that “but for” the protected activity the employer would not have taken adverse action. The EEOC proposes permitting employees to establish a causal connection by pointing to a “convincing mosaic” of circumstantial evidence that supports an inference of retaliatory animus, significantly lowering the bar to prove unlawful retaliation. For example, employees could create an inference of retaliation through evidence of “suspicious timing,” “comparative evidence that a similarly situated employee was treated differently,” or any other “bits and pieces” from which an inference of retaliatory intent might be drawn. The broader standards espoused in the proposed guidance thus increase the likelihood that the EEOC will find evidence of retaliation. 

The proposed guidance is in draft form and is subject to public comment through February 24, 2016. Employers should expect the EEOC to issue final guidance later this year, prior to President Obama’s leaving office.


In light of these recent agency actions and the administrative action that likely will follow as 2016 progresses (such as the proposed amendments to the FLSA overtime exemptions), employers should be proactive, and regularly assess their employment policies and practices to remain ahead of the curve.

© 2020 Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg LLP.National Law Review, Volume VI, Number 46


About this Author

Alexis M. Dominguez, Neal Gerber law firm, ADA Discrimination Lawyer, Wage Attorney

Alexis M. Dominguez is an associate in Neal Gerber Eisenberg’s Labor and Employment practice group.

Alex counsels clients on all aspects of labor and employment law, including compliance with Title VII, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), and the Illinois Human Rights Act. He also represents clients in employment discrimination and wage and hour litigation before state and federal courts, and has...

(312) 269-8476
Jason C. Kim, labor and employment attorney, Neal Gerber law firm

Jason C. Kim represents employers in all aspects of labor and employment law. He defends employers in arbitration and litigation matters brought under a variety of employment-related statutes, including the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), Title VII, the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. He represents and counsels clients in the full range of traditional labor matters, including litigating unfair labor practice cases before the National Labor Relations Board, negotiating labor contracts, assisting in organizing campaigns, developing labor strategies and arbitrating grievances arising under labor contracts.

William J. Tarnow II, Labor & Employment attorney, Neal Gerber law firm

William J. Tarnow II is chair of the firm’s Labor & Employment Practice Group and represents and counsels companies and management in all facets of business and employment law and employment-related litigation before federal and state courts and administrative agencies.

Bill has litigated a variety of disputes, ranging from trade secret, breach of fiduciary duty, restrictive covenants and breach of contract disputes, to claims of discrimination, harassment and retaliation under various statutes such as Title VII, the ADA and the ADEA in venues around the country. Bill also has...