Issue

Jurisdiction—joint employment doctrine—control requirement—not satisfied

Summary

In a worker's compensation proceeding brought by plaintiff-employee–a Robeson County Sheriff's Office (RCSO) law enforcement officer (LEO) who was seriously injured while performing off-duty traffic control work for alleged-employer (a concrete services company)–the Supreme Court first clarified the distinction between the "nature of the work" element in the joint employment and lent employee doctrines. The latter doctrine requires that the employee's work "is essentially that of the special employer" to which the employee is being lent; under the joint employee doctrine, the "service for each employer is the same as, or is closely related to, that for the other." However, although two of the three elements of joint employment were satisfied–plaintiff-employee had an implied employment contract with alleged-employer and his service to alleged-employer (protecting public safety by directing traffic) was the same as his duty when working for the RCSO–the simultaneous control element was not. Alleged-employer did create a traffic control plan that designated locations and timeframes for the use of LEOs, but two RCSO employees were responsible for choosing LEOs for the project and assigning each to a specific location and shift, and they retained the authority to direct, reposition, or discharge any LEO in their sole discretion, without any input from alleged-employer. Accordingly, plaintiff-employee was not a joint employee of RCSO and alleged-employer.

Summary from the North Carolina Reports digest (official subject index). Read the opinion →