California Labor &
Employment Law Blog

This and That:  Joint Employer Standards and Class Action Tolling
Jun. 14 2018

This and That:  Joint Employer Standards and Class Action Tolling

Topics: Court Decisions, New Laws & Legislation

Last week, the NLRB announced that it would be issuing proposed rulemaking on joint employer standards this summer.  Employers will recall that in 2015, the NLRB issued a controversial decision in Browning-Ferris Industries, adopting a broad standard for finding a joint employment relationship anytime an entity exercises “indirect” control over work conditions and/or has a right (e.g. by contract) to potentially exercise control.  This decision was a departure from the traditional test that found joint employment only where an entity actually exercised some direct control, and greatly expanded the scope of bargaining responsibility and potential liability for labor law violations to a wide range of “indirect” employers.  In 2017, however, in a case known as Hy-Brand, the NLRB overruled Browning-Ferris in favor of a return to the traditional direct control test for joint employment.  That positive turn of events was short-lived though because in early 2018, the NLRB vacated the Hy-Brand decision based on an alleged conflict of interest that invalidated the decision.  This resulted in the Browning-Ferris decision being reinstated, but left employers in the dark as to the precise test that the NLRB would use to determine joint employment going forward.  That confusion may soon end, now that the NLRB has announced that it will be issuing proposed rulemaking this summer on this very issue.  We will keep you posted as to these rulemaking developments.

In other news this week, the United States Supreme Court issued a helpful decision in China Agritech v. Resh on the issue of when a plaintiff gets (and, more importantly, does not get) the benefit of tolling of the statute of limitations in the case of successive class action lawsuits.  The Court held:

“The question presented in the case now before us:  Upon denial of class certification, may a putative class member, in lieu of promptly joining an existing suit or promptly filing an individual action, commence a class action anew beyond the time allowed by the applicable statute of limitations?  Our answer is no. American Pipe tolls the statute of limitations during the pendency of a putative class action, allowing unnamed class members to join the action individually or file individual claims if the class fails. But American Pipe does not permit the maintenance of a follow-on class action past expiration of the statute of limitations.”

In effect, an individual plaintiff can still get the benefit of tolling, but tolling cannot be used to allow successive class action lawsuits that would be time-barred absent application of tolling.  The Supreme Court’s decision is here

About CDF

For over 20 years, CDF has distinguished itself as one of the top employment, labor and immigration firms in California, representing employers in single-plaintiff and class action lawsuits and advising employers on related legal compliance and risk avoidance. We cover the state, with five locations from Sacramento to San Diego.

> visit primary site

About the Editor

Robin Largent has a regular presence in California state and federal courts and has been lead defense counsel and appellate counsel for large and small California employers in litigation (and arbitration) ranging from individual discrimination and harassment claims to complex wage and hour representative and class actions. She also leads the firm’s appellate practice, having substantial experience and success handling appeals, writ petitions, and amicus briefs in both state and federal court on issues such as class certification (particularly in the wage and hour arena), manageability and due process concerns associated with class action trials, exempt/non-exempt misclassification issues, meal and rest break compliance, trade secret/unfair competition matters, and the scope of federal court jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act.
> Contact   > Full Bio   Call 916.361.0991


Carothers DiSante & Freudenberger LLP © 2018

About CDFWhat We DoContact UsAttorney AdvertisingDisclaimer