The Joint Employment Doctrine: Clarifying Joint Legislative-Judicial Confusion
![handle is hein.journals/wrkco13 and id is 477 raw text is: THE JOINT EMPLOYMENT DOCTRINE:
CLARIFYING JOINT LEGISLATIVE-
JUDICIAL CONFUSION
Marc Linder t
I. INTRODUCTION
In its report to the United States House of Representatives recom-
mending approval of a Bill that would provide for the protection of mi-
grant and seasonal agricultural workers,' the Committee on Education
and Labor (Committee) stated that its
use of [the] term [employ] was deliberate and done with the
clear intent of adopting the joint employer doctrine as a central
foundation of this new statute; it is the indivisible hinge between
certain important duties imposed for the protection of migrant
and seasonal workers and those liable for any breach of those
duties.
... [W]here an agricultural employer.., asserts that the agri-
cultural workers in question are the sole [sic] employees of an in-
dependent contractor/crew leader . . . it is the intent of the
Committee that the formulation as set forth in Hodgson v. Griffin &
Brand of McAllen, Inc.2 be controlling. This decision makes clear
that even if a farm labor contractor is found to be a bona fide
independent contractor .... this status does not as a matter of law
negate the possibility that an agricultural employer may be ajoint
employer ... of the harvest workers and jointly responsible for
the contractor's employees.
The Committee's adoption of the joint employer doctrine
was deliberately made for it presented the best means by which to
insure that the purposes of this Act would be fulfilled.3
As the report forcefully underscores, migrant farm workers are partic-
ularly vulnerable to efforts by employers to evade their responsibilities
t Visiting Associate Professor, University of Iowa; B. A., University of Chicago, 1966;
Ph.D., Princeton University, 1973;J.D., Harvard Law School, 1983.
The author gratefully acknowledges the assistance given by Larry Norton, Larry
Zacharias, Bill Beardall and Jim Strothman for their review of this article.
1. H.R. REP. No. 885, 97th Cong., 2d Sess. 1 (1982).
2. 471 F.2d 235 (5th Cir.), reh 'g denied, 472 F.2d 1405 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 819
(1973).
3. H.R. REP. No. 885, supra note 1, at 6-7.
Copyright 01989,reprinted by permission from lOHamline Journal of Public Law and Policy,
pp. 321-346, l9g.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/wrkco13&div=26&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
The Joint Employment Doctrine: Clarifying Joint Legislative-Judicial Confusion
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most