Joint-employer liability has long fallen short of what unions and labor advocates seek: direct liability for manufacturers, contractors, and brands, which they view as necessary to drive meaningful change. In recent years, activists have adopted a layered litigation strategy, invoking laws unrelated to employment, including consumer protection, unfair competition, and anti-trafficking statutes in the United States and abroad, to impose liability on upstream entities for the conduct of downstream employers. These theories rely on independent statutory duties arising from the company’s own conduct, representations, or knowledge. The focus shifts from who controls workers to who benefits from the alleged mistreatment.
For example, where joint-employer theory does not support direct liability for wage-and-hour violations, those same violations may nonetheless support an unfair competition claim. Likewise, where labor law charges do not reach a franchisor, the franchisor’s representations about supply-chain oversight may create exposure under consumer protection laws. See also Supply-Chain Wage Theft as Unfair Method of Competition. Forced labor presents an even greater financial and reputational risk, given the potential for creative advocates to use the malleability of the ILO definition and its indicators to craft expansive theories reaching ordinary workplace conditions — what one author has critically termed “exploitation creep.” Exploitation Creep and the Unmaking of...
A UK woman who claimed that hip pain left her unable to walk, drive or work has been ordered to pay more than 6,000 after admitting to fraudulently claiming Statutory Sick Pay while working for ot...