,i  #aafth ,,congress  #b;d ,session    
,h4 ,r4 #fbde  ,,in ,,the ,,house ,,of  
,,representatives  ,march #ab1 #bjbj,mr4
 ,kennedy introduced the following bill2
 which was referred to the ,committee on
 ,education and ,labor  ,a ,,bill  ,to  
prohibit the ,secretary of ,labor from  
implementing or enforcing the final rule
 on joint employer status4  #a4 ,short  
title ,this ,act may be cited as the    
,upholding ,worker ,protections ,act4   
#b4 ,findings ,congress finds that3 7#a7
 ,under the ,fair ,labor ,standards ,act
 7,,flsa71 an employee can have joint   
employers who are both responsible1     
individually and jointly1 for complying 
with the law's minimum wage1 overtime1  
and child labor requirements4  7#b7 ,in 
adopting the ,,flsa1 ,congress          
established a broad definition of employ
 to include to suffer or permit to work4
 ,in using this definition1 ,congress   
rejected the narrower common law        
standard of employment1 which turns on  
the degree to which the employer has    

control over an employee4  7#c7 ,as the 
,supreme ,court noted in ,united ,states
 v4 ,rosenwasser1 the ,,flsa's          
definition of employment is the broadest
 definition that has ever been included 
in any one act4 ,the breadth of the     
,,flsa's employment standard was        
necessary to accomplish its goal of     
eliminating substandard labor           
conditions4  7#d7 ,for decades1 the     
,supreme ,court and the ,circuit ,courts
 of ,appeals have effectuated           
,congress's intent to broadly define    
employment1 and thus joint employment1  
under the ,,flsa by applying an economic
 realities test to determine whether the
 employee is economically dependent on  
the potential joint employer4  7#e7 ,on 
,january #af1 #bjbj1 the ,labor         
,department published an interpretive   
regulation that seeks to significantly  
limit joint employment liability under  
the ,,flsa4  7#f7 ,the ,labor           
,department's interpretation conflicts  
with the ,,flsa1 congressional intent1  

and judicial precedent by narrowly      
restricting joint employment to a       
question of control and rejecting the   
economic dependence inquiry4  7#g7 ,in  
recent decades1 many employers have     
increasingly moved away from the direct 
hiring of employees and instead engaged 
subcontracted workers1 temporary        
workers1 and used franchisees1 creating 
a fissuring of the workplace4 ,workers  
in the fissured workplace often have    
lower pay and limited benefits1         
exacerbating income inequality4  7#h7   
,as an interpretive regulation1 this    
rule does not have the force of law1 but
 will dictate how and if the ,department
 will continue to hold employers        
accountable when they are jointly liable
 for ,,flsa violations4  7#i7 ,the      
,labor ,department's flawed interpretive
 rule could increase wage theft and     
workplace fissuring by incentivizing    
employers to outsource work to labor    
intermediaries and subcontractors to    
avoid ,,flsa liability4 ,increased use  

of labor intermediaries or              
subcontractors that are prone to        
inadequate ,,flsa compliance would leave
 workers vulnerable to wage theft4 ,if  
such entities are thinly capitalized1   
workers may be unable to recover any    
back pay owed4  7#aj7 ,according the    
,economic ,policy ,institute1 increased 
wage theft and workplace fissuring under
 this interpretive rule could cost      
workers more than a billion dollars each
 year4  #c4 ,prohibition on implementing
 or enforcing final rule on joint       
employer status ,notwithstanding any    
other provision of law1 the ,secretary  
of ,labor may not implement or enforce  
the final rule on ,joint ,employer      
,status under the ,fair ,labor          
,standards ,act published by the        
,department of ,labor in the ,federal   
,register on ,january #af1 #bjbj 7#he   
,fed4 ,reg4 #bhbj et seq474