The U.S. Department of Labor just dropped a proposal that could redraw the lines of corporate responsibility for America’s workforce. On April 22, 2026, the agency’s Wage and Hour Division unveiled a notice of proposed rulemaking to set a uniform national standard for joint employer status. This move targets inconsistencies across federal courts, where rulings on who shares liability for wages, overtime, and leave have splintered for years. Franchisors. Contractors. Staffing firms. All stand to feel the shift.
Picture a fast-food chain like McDonald’s, overseeing hundreds of franchise outlets. Under current patchwork interpretations, a franchisor might dodge blame for a franchisee’s wage slip-up in Texas but eat the liability in California. The DOL’s fix? A clear test splitting joint employment into vertical and horizontal buckets. Vertical covers setups where an intermediary employer—like a staffing agency—sits between the worker and the end client. Horizontal hits when separate employers link up closely enough that their hours overlap in a single workweek.
Acting Labor Secretary Keith Sonderling called it a win for clarity. “This proposal helps us deliver on that promise. A clear standard on joint employment would give businesses more confidence to invest in partnerships, help employees understand their rights, and make the department’s investigations more efficient,” he said in a Yahoo Finance report. The rule applies to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), and Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (MSPA). Joint status means shared, joint-and-several liability for violations. No more dodging.
But here’s the rub. The proposal echoes a 2020 Trump-era rule that demanded actual control—hiring, firing, supervising schedules, setting pay, keeping records—to trigger joint status. That one got smacked down by a New York federal judge for exceeding statutory bounds, then axed by the Biden DOL in 2021. Now? The new version tweaks it. Reserved authority counts too, not just exercised power. And it nods to additional factors beyond the core four. DOL’s official announcement spells it out: the rule restores guidance to 29 CFR Part 791 while patching prior flaws.
Law firms pounced on the details. Gibson Dunn noted the proposal’s “more flexible approach” than the old one, aligning FMLA and MSPA with FLSA for the first time. “The proposed rule would restore a joint-employer regulation to 29 C.F.R. Part 791,” their client alert states, highlighting a 60-day comment window ending June 22, 2026 (Gibson Dunn). Fisher Phillips cheered the scaled-back liability, predicting less risk for business partnerships (Fisher Phillips). Ogletree Deakins broke down the four-factor vertical test: direct supervision to a substantial degree, pay determination, record-keeping—plus that reserved power wrinkle.
Franchise heavyweights breathed easier. The International Franchise Association hailed it as a “commonsense, workable framework” for operations, per the Yahoo Finance piece. Restaurant chains, long tangled in this fight, see relief from broad NLRB standards that lump brand owners with local operators. Nation’s Restaurant News echoed the buzz, noting the Federal Register publication on April 23 and the push for nationwide uniformity (Nation’s Restaurant News).
Not everyone’s popping champagne. Worker advocates might grumble that reserved control broadens the net less than economic reality tests from yesteryear. DOL insists it strengthens protections—ensuring workers get paid even if one employer flakes. Yet circuits like the Ninth, with Google’s Accenture Flex tussle, underscore the chaos this aims to fix. Bloomberg Law captured the stakes: a unified standard to end the “circuit splits” hobbling compliance (Bloomberg Law).
So what changes on the ground? Staffing firms could partner freer with clients, knowing indirect guidance—like brand standards—won’t auto-trigger liability. Franchisors might enforce quality without wage-theft suits. Horizontal cases? Think sister companies sharing shifts; the proposal lists seven factors, from ownership ties to shared supervision. Taft Law warned employers to watch examples in the NPRM, like cleaner-performer duos or farm labor setups (Taft Law).
History warns of pitfalls. The 2020 rule’s demise left a five-year void. This NPRM, at 91 FR 21878, faces the same gauntlet: comments, revisions, courts. Littler Mendelson predicts tweaks based on feedback, urging stakeholders to pile in by June 22 (Littler). Reed Smith flagged the void since 2021 rescission, calling it a bid for “clarity and uniformity” (Reed Smith).
X chatter reflects the divide. The Competitive Enterprise Institute praised fixes narrowing “indirect control” but pushed for congressional reform over agency whims (CEI on X). Restaurant pros shared the NRN link, eyeing franchise impacts. Broader feeds mixed it with independent contractor rules, signaling DOL’s deregulatory push.
Industry insiders know the score. Compliance costs soar without standards—audits drag, lawsuits multiply. This proposal hands businesses a map. Workers get defined rights. Investigators move faster. But finality? That’s months out, if courts play ball. Watch the docket at regulations.gov/WHD-2026-0067. The franchise model that powers 800,000 U.S. jobs hangs in balance. Clarity can’t come soon enough.
WebProNews is an iEntry Publication