The Department of Labor’s “new” rule for classifying workers as employees or independent contractors under the Fair Labor Standards Act took effect March 11, 2024. The DOL’s Final Rule returns employers to a familiar pre-Trump administration totality of the circumstances test that focuses on the “economic realities” of the worker’s situation. The practical impact is that it is now harder for businesses to classify workers as independent contractors, and it will likely increase federal wage and hour claims.

There are mounting legal challenges to the Final Rule contesting the DOL’s rulemaking authority. However, to date, none of the suits have been successful at blocking implementation of the Final Rule. So, for now, it stands.

Practice pointer: different legal tests for different laws

Employers new to the US are often baffled to learn that no single test exists to evaluate independent contractor status for all purposes. This means compliance is complicated since different tests may apply depending on the context. And yes, this also means that it’s feasible for a worker to be an independent contractor for some purposes and an employee for others (such as under state and federal law, for example). Continue reading for a summary of the key tests that come up most often for US multinationals.

Why does this matter?

Misclassification is a key issue for US employers since many laws apply only to employees – not independent contractors. Thus, if workers are misclassified as independent contractors and subsequently determined to be employees under the law, a cascade of unforeseen obligations will be thrust upon the company.

Misclassification can lead to significant liability. The FLSA requires employers to provide minimum wage and overtime pay to qualified employees—but not to independent contractors. In addition, most employees, especially full-time employees, are also entitled to various statutory benefits, such as state law paid sick leave entitlements, workers’ compensation benefits, unemployment benefits, and to benefits under an employer’s ERISA-governed benefit plans, such as group health insurance policies and 401(k) plans. Failure to properly classify workers can result in substantial damages and penalties (even if unintentional), including: back pay, including overtime compensation; employee benefits, including stock options, retirement benefits, and health plan coverage; disability payments and workers’ compensation; tax and insurance obligations; liquidated damages; and civil monetary penalties.Continue Reading New DOL Rule Makes it Harder for Businesses to Classify Workers as Independent Contractors Under the FLSA (Plus a Quick Reminder of the Key Misclassification Standards Across the US)

You’re not alone in wondering where the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (“EEOC”) final regulations to implement the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (“PWFA”) are. In fact, they are well past their due date.

How it started

The PWFA became effective on June 27, 2023. In August 2023, the EEOC published proposed regulations to implement the PWFA. (We outlined the proposed regulations in our blog here, and about the PWFA here). The public comment period for the proposed regulations closed October 10, 2023, and the proposed regulations were delivered to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (“OIRA”) on December 27, 2023 for review.

How it is going

However, to date, no final regulations have been issued, despite the PWFA’s requirement that the EEOC issue regulations by December 29, 2023. The regulations, once finalized, will provide clarity for employers implementing policies and practices to comply with the PWFA. For instance, the proposed regulations outline a nonexhaustive list of what the EEOC considers potential accommodations under the PWFA, including job restructuring and part-time or modified work schedules.

However, even without final regulations in place, employers are required to meet the PWFA’s mandates. The proposed regulations can still be used to offer insight into how the EEOC believes the PWFA should be interpreted.Continue Reading Pregnant Pause: The EEOC’s Delay In Issuing Final Regulations For The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act Should Not Delay Compliance

We may be on the verge of pay equity and transparency requirements for federal contractors and subcontractors. On January 30, 2024 the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council (FAR Council) issued proposed rulemaking that would, if finalized in its current form, require a significant change in recruiting and hiring practices for some contractors.

The FAR Council’s rule would:

  1. Require covered contractors to implement new compensation disclosure requirements in job announcements for certain positions, and
  2. Prohibit covered contractors from requesting or considering applicants’ compensation history when making employment decisions.

The public has until April 1, 2024 to submit comments. We will be tracking this proposed rule as it continues to develop. 

This is just the most recent development in the nationwide wave of state (e.g. California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Rhode Island and Washington) and local (e.g. Cincinnati, Jersey City, New York City and others) pay transparency regulation our team has chronicled on our blog–see our most recent update on the District of Columbia’s new legislation here. Recently, there has also been litigation in various jurisdictions (e.g. Washington and New York City) seeking to enforce pay transparency regulations that are already on the books. 

Potentially broad application

In its current form, the proposed rule would have broad application, covering both prime contractors and subcontractors performing a government contract or subcontract within the United States (including its outlying areas). The FAR Council states that it contemplated limiting application of the requirements to certain contracts but ultimately did not go that way since “[t]he benefits of the pay equity and transparency requirements in this proposed rule are equally impactful in commercial and noncommercial settings as well as to large or small dollar contracts.”

The proposal defines “work on or in connection with the [government] contract” as “work called for by the contract or work activities necessary to the performance of the contract but not specifically called for by the contract.” The Council “encourages” contractors to apply its provisions “to other positions, including to the recruitment and hiring for any position that the Contractor reasonably believes could eventually perform work on or in connection with the contract.”

Both requirements apply only to “applicants,” defined as a “prospective employee or current employee applying for a position to perform work on or in connection with the [government] contract.”Continue Reading Federal Contractors May Soon Be Required To Disclose Salary Ranges in Job Postings, And Prohibited From Seeking Applicant Salary History

Special thanks to co-presenters Maria Cecilia Reyes, Victor Estanislao Marina and Katherine Ninanya.

Many employers have made getting their arms around their remote work populations a new year’s resolution for 2024. Simultaneously, a growing number of jurisdictions are offering Digital Nomad Visas to attract foreign nationals — and some countries are actually shifting

Special thanks to co-presenters Nandu Machiraju and William Rowe.

Where the sellers or shareholders in a corporate transaction are individuals (especially where they may continue on as employees of the buyer), noncompetes are a valuable tool in a deal lawyer’s toolbox. However, there is a clear trend of increasing hostility to the use of

Many thanks to our Franchise, Distribution & Global Brand Expansion colleague Will Woods for co-authoring this post.

On October 25, 2023 the National Labor Relations Board issued a final joint employer rule (accompanied by a fact sheet) making it easier for multiple companies to be deemed “joint employers” under the law. This legal classification can have profound consequence by making independent entities now liable for labor law violations as well as obligations to negotiate with unions.

The new standard casts a wider net for “joint-employer” status

Under the new rule, an entity may be considered a joint employer of a group of employees if the entity shares or codetermines one or more of the employees’ “essential terms and conditions of employment.” The Board defines the essential terms and conditions of employment as:

  1. wages, benefits, and other compensation;
  2. hours of work and scheduling;
  3. the assignment of duties to be performed;
  4. the supervision of the performance of duties;
  5. work rules and directions governing the manner, means, and methods of the performance of duties and the grounds for discipline;
  6. the tenure of employment, including hiring and discharge; and
  7. working conditions related to the safety and health of employees.

How the new rule dramatically shifts away from the 2020 rule

In issuing the final rule, the NLRB rescinded the prior 2020 joint employer rule (a remnant of the Trump-era Board), which provided that a business is a joint employer only if it both possesses and exercises substantial direct and immediate control over one or more essential terms and conditions of employment-with “substantial” meaning control that is not exercised on a “sporadic, isolated, or de minimis basis. ” (For more on the 2020 rule, see our prior blog here.) The 2020 rule’s higher threshold meant a lower likelihood that businesses would be considered joint employers. The new rule’s impact on employers could be wide-ranging, and particularly difficult for non-unionized employers who are not used to navigating typical union activity such as being required to show up at the bargaining table, handling unfair labor practice charges, or dealing with picketing by a vendors’ employees (which would have previously been considered an illegal secondary boycott).

No direct (or even exercised) control required

The new rule rejects the previous rule’s focus on “direct and immediate control.” Instead, now, indirect or reserved control is sufficient to establish joint employer status. Thus, if a company has contractual authority over certain employment terms but never acts on that authority, that may be enough to establish a joint employer relationship. The same goes for a company that exercises authority over another company’s workers through a “go-between” company or intermediary, or a company requiring a vendors’ employees to follow certain health and safety rules while on-premises. In these instances, liability under the National Labor Relations Act, including the requirement to negotiate with a union, could ensue.Continue Reading NLRB Announces Most Expansive Definition of Joint Employment Yet, With Potential Significant Implications for Franchisors, Staffing Agencies and More


Employee handbooks are at the top of employers’ key priorities.

Why? The NLRB’s recent decision in Stericycle adopted a retroactive “employee friendly” standard for workplace rules, including those often included in handbooks. In addition, the new year often rings in new laws requiring changes to workplace policies often included in handbooks. And, the US Supreme

Presented by the Institute for Technology Law & Policy at Georgetown Law in collaboration with Baker McKenzie.

On November 8, join thought leaders from government, the judiciary, academia, and private practice for this timely gathering on the Georgetown Law campus in Washington, DC. Laws and policy surrounding the protection of trade secrets are changing as technology

New guidance from USCIS provides a new alternative, starting August 1, 2023, allowing employers that participate in E-Verify to inspect documents presented for I-9 completion remotely. This update will free qualifying employers from the burden of performing a physical verification.

To qualify, employers must be in good standing with E-Verify. This significant change in USCIS policy provide a pragmatic solution for qualifying employers, particularly those with large remote-working populations. The new guidance is also timely – as it is effective the day after USCIS’ COVID-19 flexible guidance is set to expire.Continue Reading Update: USCIS Modernizes I-9 Verification Process Allowing for Virtual Verification