While minimum wage and paid sick leave battles steal much of the anti-business limelight of late, we can’t lose sight of the importance of the ongoing efforts to effectively negate the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) recasting traditional employer definitions.  As the McDonald’s v NLRB joint-employer case continues in a Manhattan courtroom, there’s been plenty of state level action seeking to limit the applicability of a new joint-employer definition.  We previously advised that a number of states (Louisiana, Michigan, Tennessee & Texas) had enacted laws limiting the definition of joint-employer within their borders and similar efforts continue in a big way.  The Georgia legislature has approved and sent to Governor Nathan Deal for his signature, the Protecting Georgia Small Business Act (SB 277).  The bill provides that “neither a franchisee nor a franchisee’s employee shall be deemed to be an employee of the franchisor for any purpose . . .”  Virginia, which has been working on the clarifying joint-employer for months, finalized HB 18 to resolve the question in the Old Dominion state and sent it to Governor Terry McAuliffe.  Unfortunately, McAuliffe vetoed the legislation last Friday.  An effort to override may be initiated when the legislature reconvenes in August, but it is considered unlikely to succeed.  Elsewhere, Utah Governor Gary Herbert had no qualms about signing HB 116 into law and its provisions take effect in less than a month (May 10).  Not only does this law strictly define joint-employer, it goes one step further and precludes Utah state courts from relying on federal administrative rulings on joint-employer status in future cases unless authorized by further legislative action.   It was a mixed bag in other states as Indiana Governor Mike Pence signed into law, HB 1218, which restricts the applicability of joint-employer while similar efforts in Colorado failed last month on a vote of 5 – 6 in the House Committee on Local Government.