On April 22, 2026, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking aimed at clarifying when multiple entities may be considered “joint employers” under federal wage and hour laws. If finalized, the rule would create a single, more uniform standard under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and align that analysis with the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (MSPA), marking a significant step toward consistency across these statutes.
The proposal formalizes the distinction between “horizontal” and “vertical” joint employment. Horizontal joint employment exists where two employers are sufficiently associated with respect to the same employee, while vertical joint employment applies where a worker is formally employed by one entity but economically dependent on another. The DOL emphasizes that ordinary business relationships, such as franchising arrangements or shared vendors, are not enough, standing alone, to establish joint employment. This is an important clarification for employers operating within common business models.
For vertical joint employment, the DOL proposes a four-factor analysis focused on whether the potential joint employer hires or fires the employee, exercises substantial control over the employee’s schedule or working conditions, determines the rate or method of pay, and maintains employment records. The proposal further clarifies that actual, exercised control carries more weight than theoretical or reserved control, reinforcing the “economic reality” framework applied by courts. While additional considerations may be relevant, the DOL signals that these four factors will carry significant weight in the analysis.
The Notice also narrows the scope of relevant considerations by excluding factors tied to independent contractor analysis and by clarifying that common, compliance-driven business practices, such as providing policies, participating in benefit plans, or maintaining quality control standards, do not create joint employer status by themselves. This aspect of the proposal is intended to provide employers with greater certainty when implementing standard operational and compliance measures.
If adopted, the rule would have significant implications for employers that rely on staffing agencies, contractors, franchise models, or affiliated business structures. A joint employment finding carries joint and several liability, meaning each employer may be responsible for the full amount of wages, overtime, and other damages owed, regardless of which entity directly employed the worker.
The proposal is open for public comment through June 22, 2026. The KMK Labor & Employment Team will continue to monitor developments and will keep employers informed as this rulemaking process unfolds and if a final rule is issued.
KMK Law articles and blog posts are intended to bring attention to developments in the law and are not intended as legal advice for any particular client or any particular situation. The laws/regulations and interpretations thereof are evolving and subject to change. Although we will attempt to update articles/blog posts for material changes, the article/post may not reflect changes in laws/regulations or guidance issued after the date the article/post was published. Please consult with counsel of your choice regarding any specific questions you may have.
ADVERTISING MATERIAL.
© 2026 Keating Muething & Klekamp PLL. All Rights Reserved
- Partner
Chris Jones focuses his practice on litigating and advising clients regarding issues within the workplace. Chris strives to fully understand clients’ business concerns and counsels clients regarding hiring and firing issues ...
- Associate
Kelzé Riley is an associate in the firm's Labor & Employment Group. Her practice includes a wide range of labor and employment matters.
Kelzé earned her J.D. from the Donald P. Klekamp College of Law at the University of Cincinnati in ...
Topics/Tags
Select- Labor & Employment Law
- EEOC
- Employment Law
- Diversity
- Labor Law
- Department of Labor
- Immigration
- Wage & Hour
- National Enforcement Plan
- FMLA
- NLRB
- Arbitration
- National Labor Relations Board
- Americans with Disabilities Act
- FLSA
- Discrimination
- Reasonable Accommodation
- Coronavirus
- Sexual Harassment
- Social Media
- Sixth Circuit
- Title VII
- Employer Policies
- Holiday Policies
- Transgender Issues
- Employment Litigation
- Religion Discrimination
- Employer Rules
- Overtime Pay
- Workplace Violence
- Non-Compete Agreements
- Pregnancy Discrimination
- OSHA
- Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation
- Artificial Intelligence
- Privacy
- Independent Contractor
- Joint Employer
- Telework
- Department of Justice
- NLRA
- Paid Leave Laws
- Compliance
- Supreme Court
- Tax Credit
- Employee Tips
- One Big Beautiful Bill
- Workplace Accommodations
- Federal Trade Commission
- Litigation
- Worker Classification
- IRS
- Harassment
- Performance Improvement Plans
- Department of Homeland Security
- Foreign Nationals
- Immigration and Customs Enforcement
- Immigration and Nationality Act
- Disability Discrimination
- Medical Marijuana
- Retirement
- Inclusion
- LGBTQ+
- National Labor Relations Act
- Accommodation
- Sexual Orientation Discrimination
- Employer Handbook
- Race Discrimination
- ADAAA
- ERISA
- Unions
- ACA
- Affordable Car Act
- Technology
- Federal Arbitration Act
- Medical Cannabis Dispensaries
- Whistleblower
- Disability
- United States Supreme Court
- 401(k)
- Employment Settlement Agreements
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
- Fair Labor Standards Act
- Benefits
- Gender Identity Discrimination
- Posting Requirements
- Class Action Litigation
- Disability Law
- E-Discovery
- Evidence
- Paycheck Protection Program
- Environmental Law
- Family and Medical Leave Act
- Privacy Laws
- Securities Law
- Health Savings Account
- Preventive Care Benefits
- SECURE Act
- US Department of Labor Employee Benefits Security Administration
- Healthcare Reform
- Representative Election Regulations
- Older Workers' Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA)
- Affirmative Action
- Compensable Time
- Electronically Stored Information
- Equal Opportunity Clause
- Security Screening
- Telecommuting
- E-Discovery Case Law
- Electronic Data Discovery
- ESI
- Occupational Safety and Health Administration
- Unemployment Insurance Integrity Act
- American Medical Association
- Attendance Policy
- Classification
- Confidentiality
- Fair Minimum Wage
- Federal Minimum Wage
- Media Policy
- Misclassification
- Return to Work
- Seniority Rights
- State Minimum Wage
- Wage Increase
- Disability Leave
- Equal Pay
- Genetic Information Discrimination
- National Origin Discrimination
- Retaliation
- Social Media Content
- Antitrust
- Employment Incentives
- HIRE Act
- Social Security Tax
- Taxation
Recent Posts
- TPS Haiti Termination: How Employers Can Ensure I-9 Records Remain Compliant
- A New Enforcement Era: What Employers Should Know About the EEOC’s 2025–2029 National Enforcement Plan
- Beyond Paid Time Off: The Legal Side of Holiday Policies
- EEO-1 Reporting on the Chopping Block: What Employers Need to Know
- DOL Proposes New Joint Employer Rule: What Employers Need to Know
- Arbitration Agreements Take a Hit: What the Sixth Circuit's EFAA Decision Means for Your Workplace Agreements
- Bourbon, Ballots, and Bargaining Orders: Sixth Circuit Rejects NLRB’s Cemex Framework
- Independent Contractor and Joint Employer Rules: Looking to the Past for Future Compliance
- New Requirements for Employers in California
- Back to the Office: The EEOC Clarifies the Limits of Telework Under the ADA

