Perhaps the lightening rod of all NLRB decisions during the tenure of General Counsel Griffin was the Board’s rewriting of the definition of joint employer. As the Browning-Ferris decision reverberated through business circles, the NLRB upped the ante when they began liberally applying their new standard to an array of industries and companies (McDonald’s, DirectTV, and others). This week, an amicus curiae brief was filed with the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) in the DirecTV case by the Coalition of Franchisee Associations (CFA) and an array of other franchise industry players. The Asian American Hotel Owners Association (AAHOA), the International Franchise Association (IFA), the Restaurant Law Center and the American Hotel and Lodging Association joined with the CFA in asking the court to establish a clear definition of joint employer. The case involved a 2011 finding by the NLRB that DirectTV was a joint employer under a new, and even more threatening “complete disassociation” theory that holds franchisors and franchisees as joint employers unless they are “completely disassociated” from each other, including but not limited to land ownership and employee wearing the franchisor’s logo. The groups’ amicus asks the court to determine a consistent and reasonable standard such that franchisors, franchisees and employees have a bright line test from which all can move forward. At the state level, individual states continue to pass their own laws clarifying the joint-employer definition and New Hampshire is likely to be next to join that list. The NH legislature has passed and sent SB89 to the Governor, who is expected to sign the measure.