29 C.F.R. § 825.106

Joint employer coverage

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(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:

(1) Where there is an arrangement between employers to share an employee's services or to interchange employees;

(2) Where one employer acts directly or indirectly in the interest of the other employer in relation to the employee; or,

(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.

(b)(1) 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 placement agency supplies employees to a second employer.

(2) A type of company that is often called a Professional Employer Organization (PEO) contracts with client employers to perform administrative functions such as payroll, benefits, regulatory paperwork, and updating employment policies. The determination of whether a PEO is a joint employer also turns on the economic realities of the situation and must be based upon all the facts and circumstances. A PEO does not enter into a joint employment relationship with the employees of its client companies when it merely performs such administrative functions. On the other hand, if in a particular fact situation, a PEO has the right to hire, fire, assign, or direct and control the client's employees, or benefits from the work that the employees perform, such rights may lead to a determination that the PEO would be a joint employer with the client employer, depending upon all the facts and circumstances.

(c) 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. For employees of temporary placement agencies, for example, the placement agency most commonly would be the primary employer. Where a PEO is a joint employer, the client employer most commonly would be the primary employer.

(d) Employees 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. For example, an employer who jointly employs 15 workers from a temporary placement agency and 40 permanent workers is covered by FMLA. (A special rule applies to employees jointly employed who physically work at a facility of the secondary employer for a period of at least one year. See § 825.111(a)(3).) An employee on leave who is working for a secondary employer is considered employed by the secondary employer, and must be counted for coverage and eligibility purposes, as long as the employer has a reasonable expectation that that employee will return to employment with that employer. In those cases in which a PEO is determined to be a joint employer of a client employer's employees, the client employer would only be required to count employees of the PEO (or employees of other clients of the PEO) if the client employer jointly employed those employees.

(e) Job restoration is the primary responsibility of the primary employer. The secondary employer is responsible for accepting the employee returning from FMLA leave in place of the replacement employee if the secondary employer continues to utilize an employee from the temporary placement agency, and the agency chooses to place the employee with the secondary employer. A secondary employer is also responsible for compliance with the prohibited acts provisions with respect to its jointly employed employees, whether or not the secondary employer is covered by FMLA. See § 825.220(a). The prohibited acts include prohibitions against interfering with an employee's attempt to exercise rights under the Act, or discharging or discriminating against an employee for opposing a practice which is unlawful under FMLA. A covered secondary employer will be responsible for compliance with all the provisions of the FMLA with respect to its regular, permanent workforce.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 76 cases (21 in the last 5 years), 1997–2026 · leading case: Grace v. USCAR, 521 F.3d 655 (6th Cir. 2008).
Grace v. USCAR, 521 F.3d 655 (6th Cir. 2008). · cites it 15× “Ohio May 3, 2007) (“Furthermore, the Court finds that 29 C.F.R. § 825.106 [addressing joint employment] is entitled to deference, given that it is consistent with the FMLA and necessary to carry out its purposes.”
Stephane Moreau v. Air France Joseph P. Bouloux Howard Weisser v. United States of Am., Intervenor-Appellee, 356 F.3d 942 (9th Cir. 2004). · cites it 8× “29 C.F.R. § 825.106 (a) & (b). The regulations distinguish between the “primary employer” and “secondary employer”: In joint employment relationships, only the primary employer is responsible for giving required notices to its employees, providing FMLA leave, and maintenance of…”
Kieffer v. CPR Restoration & Cleaning Serv., LLC, 200 F. Supp. 3d 520 (E.D. Pa. 2016). · cites it 5× “Compare 29 C.F.R. § 825.106 with § 825.104(c)(2).”
Moldenhauer v. Tazewell-Pekin Consol. Commc'ns Ctr., 536 F.3d 640 (7th Cir. 2008). · cites it 4× “29 C.F.R. § 825.106 (a). But this regulation, which focuses on whether multiple entities exercise *644 “some control” over the employee, does not answer the question before us and does not even provide much guidance in determining the parameters of what constitutes a…”
Stephane Moreau v. Air France Joseph P. Bouloux Howard Weisser v. United States of Am., Intervenor-Appellee, 343 F.3d 1179 (9th Cir. 2003). · cites it 5× “29 C.F.R. § 825.106 (a) & (b). The regulations distinguish between the “primary employer” and “secondary employer”: In joint employment relationships, only the primary employer is responsible for giving required notices to its employees, providing FMLA leave, and maintenance of…”
Harbert v. Healthcare Servs. Grp., Inc., 391 F.3d 1140 (10th Cir. 2004). · cites it 3× “2004); 29 C.F.R. 825.106. 84 The legislative history reflects that the Senate and House obviously were aware of variations in joint employment relationships and directed the Secretary to construe "worksite" in the same manner as the term "single site of employment" under the…”
Russell v. Bronson Heating & Cooling, 345 F. Supp. 2d 761 (E.D. Mich. 2004). · cites it 6× “Joint-Employment Doctrine In certain situations, two entities will be viewed as a single employer of an employee provided they meet either the “joint employment” test discussed in 29 C.F.R. § 825.106 , or the “integrated employer” test discussed in 29 C.”
Metro. Water Dist. v. Superior Court, 84 P.3d 966 (Cal. 2004). · cites it 2× “29 C.F.R. § 825.106 (b)-(e) (2003) [designating the leasing employer as the employer for purposes of family leave].”
Cuellar v. Keppel Amfels, L.L.C., 731 F.3d 342 (5th Cir. 2013). · cites it 2× “” 29 C.F.R. § 825.106 (a). Under the relevant regulations, a joint employer’s obligations *346 under the FMLA depend on whether it is the “primary” or “secondary” employer.”
Miller v. Defiance Metal Prods., Inc., 989 F. Supp. 945 (N.D. Ohio 1997). · cites it 5× “” 29 CFR § 825.106 (a). Also, joint employment exists “[wjhere one employer acts directly or indirectly in the interest of the other employer in relation to the employee.”
Monica Quintana v. City of Alexandria, 692 F. App'x 122 (4th Cir. 2017). · cites it 4× “” 29 C.F.R. § 825.106 (a). Only the primary employer is responsible for giving required notices to employees and providing FMLA leave.”
Griffin v. Sirva Inc., 835 F.3d 283 (2d Cir. 2016). “2d at 96 (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 825.106 (a)). The district court made no apparent attempt to distinguish analytically the “joint employer” doctrine from the “single employer” doctrine.”
— 29 C.F.R. § 825.106(b)(2) — 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.