Go to Wolters Kluwer VitalLaw.comGo to Wolters Kluwer VitalLaw.com
VitalLaw®
  • Find answers to your questions
  • Log in to access your subscriptions
In depth. On point.
In depth. On point.
  • Home
  • Legal Directory
  • Home
  • Legal Directory
In depth. On point.
  • Articles
  • Articles
  • Law Firms
  • Law Firms
  • Organizations
  • Organizations
    • REMEDIES, DAMAGES—D.R.I.: Preliminary injunction issued regarding firings at three more federal agencies
    • AGENCY NEWS—CFTC places staff on leave amid misconduct and telework fraud investigation
    • AGENCY NEWS—GAO and CFPB OIG to investigate Bureau shutdown by Trump-Musk
    • ARBITRATION—N.D. Cal.: Arbitration agreement within ‘informational’ only employee handbooks not enforceable
    • DISCRIMINATION—10th Cir.: Explosives supervisor failed to show pretext in Army’s selection of younger male for promotion
    • EXPERT INSIGHTS—D.C. Circuit erases NLRB joint employer order after Google-Cognizant contract lapses
    • EXPERT INSIGHTS—Mandating English proficiency for truck drivers: Trump EO shifts policy for transportation industry
    • HOUSE NEWS—Representatives Min and Levin send letter alerting Florida Bar Association of AG Bondi’s potential misconduct
    • IMMIGRATION—E.D.N.C.: Foreign farm workers, DOL win challenge to Biden-era rule providing protections
    • INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS—5th Cir.: Fifth Circuit lacks jurisdiction over Amazon’s appeal alleging NLRB proceedings were unconstitutional
    • LABOR—ARBITRATION—Grievance over work performed by non-unit sales executives partially sustained
    • LITIGATION NEWS, TRENDS—Supreme Court grants stay, allowing transgender military ban to proceed
    • PENSION AND BENEFIT PLANS—6th Cir.: Complaint that fiduciaries breached fiduciary duty of prudence by paying excessive recordkeeping fees failed
    • PUBLIC EMPLOYEES—Selected updates on the state of federal workers, including gender and racial impacts
  • Articles
  • Articles
  • Law Firms
  • Law Firms
  • Organizations
  • Organizations

    Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, EXPERT INSIGHTS—D.C. Circuit erases NLRB joint employer order after Google-Cognizant contract lapses, (May 7, 2025)

    Law Firms Mentioned:Proskauer Rose
    Organizations Mentioned:Cognizant Technology Solutions | Labor Relations | Proskauer Rose, LLP

    By Joshua Fox of Proskauer Rose LLP

    The D.C. Circuit's April 22, 2025 decision offers an important lesson on joint-employer cases under the National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA" or "Act"): without an ongoing contractual relationship, the dispute can vanish in a puff of mootness.

    Google c ...

    By Joshua Fox of Proskauer Rose LLP

    The D.C. Circuit's April 22, 2025 decision offers an important lesson on joint-employer cases under the National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA" or "Act"): without an ongoing contractual relationship, the dispute can vanish in a puff of mootness.

    Google contracted with Cognizant Technology Solutions ("Cognizant") in 2019 to provide services through a team for YouTube Music Operations in Austin, Texas. The contract between the two companies was renewed several times, but expired in February 2024, ending the employees' jobs. While the contract was still in force, the Alphabet Workers Union won a National Labor Relations Board ("NLRB" or "Board") election and the Board deemed Google and Cognizant joint employers who owed the Union a duty to bargain. Both companies refused to bargain, challenging the joint-employer determination. The Board then determined the refusal a violation of the Act and ordered bargaining and for both companies to post a notice of employee rights, reserving "make-whole" relief for later.

    On review, the D.C. Circuit raised mootness sua sponte (independently and without being prompted by either party). Because the contract had already expired, the Court concluded no employment relationship remained, no bargaining order could be enforced, and no effective relief was possible. It rejected the usual mootness exceptions—"capable of repetition yet evading review" and "voluntary cessation"—as ill-fitting where the relationship ended by its own terms.

    The Court vacated the Board's order to prevent any lingering preclusive effect. It also tossed the Union's challenge to the Board's remedial choices, faulting the Union for failing to utilize the Board's own reconsideration process.

    Takeaways: While not binding on future NLRB cases, a D.C. Circuit decision is noteworthy. This decision reinforces that in joint-employer disputes, the contract's lifespan underpinning the relationship between two putative joint employers can be dispositive. Once the underlying agreement—and the employment it creates—expires, any duty to bargain (and the litigation that hinges on it) may dissolve. Employers should track contract end-dates as closely as they track the evolving joint-employer standard.

    View original.

    D.C. Circuit Erases NLRB Joint Employer Order After Google-Cognizant Contract Lapses

    The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

    Joshua Fox

    Proskauer Rose LLP

    Eleven Times Square

    (Eighth Avenue & 41st Street)

    New York

    10036-8299

    United States

    Tel.: +1 212 9693000

    E-mail: [email protected]

    URL: www.proskauer.com/

    (c) Mondaq Ltd., 2025 - Tel. +44 (0)20 8544 8300 - http://www.mondaq.com

    Attorneys: (Proskauer Rose).

    ExpertInsights: UnfairLaborPractices CoverageLiability Procedure AgencyNews PracticeTip

    © 2026 CCH Incorporated and its affiliates and licensors. All rights reserved.

    • Manage Cookie Preferences
    • Privacy Statement
    • Terms of Use