The 2024 Florida Statutes
|
||||||
|
. . . . § 825.106. . . .
. . . . § 825.106(a). . . . Id. § 825.106(c). . . . Id. § 825.106(e). . . . Id. § 825.106(c). . . . See 29 C.F.R. § 825.106(e); see also Cuellar v. . . .
. . . . § 825.106(b)(2). . . .
. . . . § 825.106(a)). . . .
. . . . § 825.106 with § 825.104(c)(2). . . . See 29 C.F.R. § 825.106(a); Arculeo, 425 F.3d at 198 (citing Clinton’s Ditch Cooperative Co. v. . . . “may be separate and distinct entities with separate owners, managers, and facilities.” 29 C.F.R. § 825.106 . . . employer controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with the other employer. 29 C.F.R. § 825.106 . . . See 29 C.F.R. § 825.106(b)(1). . . .
. . . . § 825.106). . . .
. . . Florida’s Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation of Elderly Persons and Disabled Adults statute, §§ 825.101-825.106 . . .
. . . . § 825.106 (FMLA), which in these proceedings are to generally be determined by the DOL. . . . See, e.g., Enterprise, 683 F.3d at 468-9 (FLSA); see also 29 C.F.R. 825.106 (FMLA). . . . .
. . . . § 825.106(c) (“[Ojnly the primary employer is responsible for giving required notices to its employees . . . of health benefits.”), and only a firing party is liable for discriminatory firing.- See 29 C.F.R. § 825.106 . . .
. . . . § 825.106(a). . . . The joint-employment inquiry under § 825.106(a) is person-specific; it is possible for one person to . . . Regulation 825.106(a) supplies a list of factors to consider — all relevant, none dispositive. . . .
. . . . § 825.106(a). . . . . § 825.106(a); see also Grace, 521 F.3d at 665. . . .
. . . . § 825.106 so that their number of employees could be combined in determining whether the 50-employee . . .
. . . . § 825.106(a). . . . Id. § 825.106(c). . . . Id. § 825.106(c). . . . Id. § 825.106(e). . . . with a secondary employer may end and never be restored without any violation of the FMLA. 29 C.F.R. § 825.106 . . .
. . . . §§ 825.104(c), 825.106(b)(2); see Baer v. . . .
. . . . § 825.106(a). . . . found to exist when a temporary placement agency supplies employees to a second employer. 29 C.F.R. § 825.106 . . .
. . . . §§ 825.104(c), 825.106. The same regulations do not exist in the context of Title VII. . . . .
. . . determining that employee’s eligibility, when an employee is jointly employed by two or more employers (see § 825.106 . . . a)(3), however, provides that “when an employee is jointly employed by two or more employers (see § 825.106 . . .
. . . . § 825.106, and the “integrated employer” test, 29 C.F.R. § 825.104(c)(2). See Dey v. . . . employer controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with the other employer. 29 C.F.R. § 825.106 . . . such, there was at least an implicit arrangement between Defendants to share his services. 29 C.F.R. § 825.106 . . . employer controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with the other employer.” 29 C.F.R. § 825.106 . . .
. . . . § 825.106(a), Barbosa, 716 F.Supp.2d at 216. . . . instances in which “a joint employment relationship generally will be considered to exist.” 29 C.F.R. § 825.106 . . . single criterion, but rather the entire relationship is to be viewed in its totality.” 29 C.F.R. § 825.106 . . .
. . . . § 825.106(b)(1)); Jacobson, 740 F.Supp.2d at 691-92. . . .
. . . . § 825.106(b). III. A. Comcast unquestionably plays a role in hiring and firing technicians. . . .
. . . the court, in the exercise of its discretion, shall take into consideration the dictates of sections 825.106 . . .
. . . . § 825.106(d) (“Employees jointly employed by two employers must be counted by both employers ... in . . . employer controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with the other employer. 29 C.F.R. § 825.106 . . . Instead “the entire relationship is to be viewed in its totality.” 29 C.F.R. § 825.106(b)(1). . . .
. . . . § 825.106. . . .
. . . See 29 C.F.R. § 825.106(b). . . . See 29 C.F.R. §§ 825.106(c) & (e). . . . Id. at 950-53; see also 29 C.F.R. § 825.106(b). . . . See 356 F.3d at 952-53; see also 29 C.F.R. § 825.106(b). . . . See 29 C.F.R. § 825.106(c). . . .
. . . . § 825.106(a). . . . Remington Hybrid Seed Co., 495 F.3d 403, 408 (7th Cir.2007); 29 C.F.R. § 825.106. . . . The joint-employer regulation in the FLSA mirrors that in the FMLA, compare 29 C.F.R. § 825.106(a) with . . . found to exist when a temporary or leasing agency supplies employees to a second employer.” 29 C.F.R. § 825.106 . . .
. . . . § 825.106 [addressing joint employment] is entitled to deference, given that it is consistent with . . . businesses exercise some control over the work or working conditions of the employee.” 29 C.F.R. § 825.106 . . . “may be separate and distinct entities with separate owners, managers, and facilities.” 29 C.F.R. § 825.106 . . . See Mahoney, 444 F.Supp.2d at 1255-56 (applying the § 825.106 factors and determining that the staffing . . . Compare 29 C.F.R. § 825.106 with § 825.104(c)(2). . . .
. . . . § 825.106(a) notes that a joint employment relationship may exist where “an employee performs work . . . determined by any single criterion, but instead “the entire relationship is to be viewed in its totality.” § 825.106 . . .
. . . another corporation, it is a separate employer unless it meets the “joint employment” test discussed in § 825.106 . . . Compare 29 C.F.R. § 825.106 with § 825.104(c)(2). . . .
. . . The facts of this case bring it within the purview of 29 C.F.R. section 825.106 (“Section 825.106”), . . . Section 825.106 addresses the distinction between primary and secondary employers in the context of a . . . Section 825.106 Factors 1) Aiáhority/responsibility to hire and fire Nokia played no role in Spherion . . . Therefore, the Court finds that Section 825.106(e) does not support Mahoney’s claim. IV. . . . 825.214 which, in turn, directs the reader to Section 825.106(e). . . .
. . . See also § 825.106(e) for the obligations of joint employers. . . .
. . . See also § 825.106(e) for the obligations of joint employers. . . .
. . . . § 825.106(c). . . . Air France, 356 F.3d 942, 946 (9th Cir.2004); 29 C.F.R. 825.106. . . . determining that employee’s eligibility, when an employee is jointly employed by two or more employers (see § 825.106 . . . Section 825.106(a) states that two entities may be considered “joint employers” where they both exercise . . . Id. § 825.106(a). . . . Id. § 825.106(b). . . . Id. § 825.106(c). . . .
. . . . § 825.106, or the “integrated employer” test discussed in 29 C.F.R. § 825.104(c)(2). . . . Similarly, BHC cites 29 C.F.R. § 825.106(d) which describes the same scenario where a temporary help . . . The joint employment issue is addressed in 29 C.F.R. § 825.106 and it states: § 825.106 How is “joint . . . the existence of a “joint employment” relationship especially given explicit reference in 29 C.F.R. § 825.106 . . . (BCN's Reply pg. 1). . 29 C.F.R. § 825.106(b) states that "joint employment will ordinarily be found . . .
. . . See also § 825.106(e) for the obligations of joint employers. . . .
. . . . § 825.106(a). . . .
. . . . § 825.106, which provides: (a) Where two or more businesses exercise some control over the work or . . . Compare 29 C.F.R. § 825.106 with 29 C.F.R. § 791.2(b).” . . .
. . . . § 825.106(a). The Court believes that the instant case fits none of those criteria. . . .
. . . . § 825.106(a) & (b). . . . Id. at § 825.106(c). . . . . § 825.106(d). B. . . . Compare 29 C.F.R. § 825.106 with 29 C.F.R. § 791.2(b). In a FLSA case, Bonnette v. . . . See 29 C.F.R. § 825.106(c). . . .
. . . . § 825.106(a) & (b). . . . Id. at § 825.106(c). . . . . § 825.106(d). B. . . . Compare 29 C.F.R. § 825.106 with 29 C.F.R. § 791.2(b). 1. . . . in the circumstances of this case, considering the entire relationship in its totality, 29 C.F.R. § 825.106 . . .
. . . . §§ 825.104, 825.106. . . . The Joint Employment Theory The issue of joint employment liability is addressed in 29 C.F.R. § 825.106 . . . Section 825.106(a) sets forth the three situations where separate employers may constitute a joint employer . . . employer controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with the other employer. 29 C.F.R. § 825.106 . . . single employer of an employee provided they meet either the " 'joint employment' test discussed in § 825.106 . . .
. . . the court, in the exercise of its discretion, shall take into consideration the dictates of sections 825.106 . . .
. . . . § 825.106(a) provides “[w]here two or more businesses exercise some eon-trol over the work or working . . . Id. at § 825.106(a)(1), (2), (3). . . . Id. at § 825.106(c). . . . Rather, both parties spend a great deal of energy analyzing the language of 29 C.F.R. § 825.106(a)(1) . . . addressing joint employment under the FLSA contains identical language to that used in 29 C.F.R. § 825.106 . . .
. . . the court, in the exercise of its discretion, shall take into consideration the dictates of sections 825.106 . . .
. . . . § 825.106 and should be included in- AHH’s employee count for FMLA purposes. . . .
. . . or working conditions' of the employee, the businesses may be joint employers under FMLA.” 29 CFR § 825.106 . . . directly or indirectly in the interest of the other employer in relation to the employee.” 29 CFR § 825.106 . . . ordinarily be found to exist when a temporary ... agency supplies employees to a second employer.” 29 CFR § 825.106 . . . counted by both employers ... in determining employer coverage and employee eligibility.” 29 CFR § 825.106 . . . joint employment is based upon the relationship as a whole and not on any single criterion. 29 CFR § 825.106 . . .
. . . . § 825.106, or the "integrated employer” test in 29 C.F.R. § 825.104(c)(2). . . .
. . . The new subdivision, entitled “Motion to Expedite,” is added to comport with sections 825.106 and 918.0155 . . . the court, in the exercise of its discretion, shall take into consideration the dictates of sections 825.106 . . .