Allegations of joint employment under the FLSA and other employment laws typically flow from control allegedly exercised by the purported “joint employer” over the primary employer and/or its employees. In a recent opinion rejecting such allegations, Magistrate Judge Joan Azrack of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted summary judgment

Plaintiffs in FLSA litigation often file suit against additional entities and parties beyond their primary or W-2 employer. One common allegation is that the corporate parent of an employing subsidiary is a “joint employer.” This can impact not only which entities are liable for any FLSA violation (where a joint employer relationship is found), but also

Wage and hour plaintiffs, like all plaintiffs, seek recovery from the largest, most viable defendants. Often, employees who separate from failing businesses seek to broaden the scope of the concept of “employer” within the meaning of wage-hour laws and include as defendants other potentially-liable parties with “deep pockets.” As discussed here, a federal court in Pennsylvania

Businesses that outsource specific functions are often subject to allegations that they are a joint employer of the employees of the outsourced entity. A Pennsylvania District Court recently rejected this theory of liability and dismissed Bank of America from a lawsuit brought by call center employees employed by a vendor servicing Bank of America, who alleged