Joint employment doctrine limits off-duty liability

The North Carolina Supreme Court clarified the limits of the state’s joint employment doctrine, holding that the plaintiff was employed solely by the defendant sheriff’s office at the time of his injury and not jointly employed by the defendant construction company. The plaintiff began working for the defendant sheriff’s office in 2008 as a law enforcement officer. As part of that employment, he could accept approved off-duty assignments for additional pay. Supervisors from the sheriff’s office reviewed and coordinated those requests. On the night of the accident, the plaintiff was directed by a supervisor to change traffic-control positions while working an off-duty assignment related to a highway repair project. While directing traffic with emergency lights activated, the plaintiff was struck by a vehicle, suffering serious injuries. He sought workers’ compensation benefits from both the sheriff’s office and the construction company. The North Carolina Industrial Commission concluded the plaintiff was an employee of the sheriff’s office but not of the construction company. The North Carolina Court of Appeals agreed the plaintiff was not an independent contractor but held the construction company could be liable as a joint employer. The Supreme Court reversed that portion of the decision. The sole issue before the Court was whether the plaintiff was jointly employed. Applying the three-factor joint employment test, the Court found an implied contract for hire existed because the plaintiff knew he would be paid by the construction company and the company knew law enforcement officers would implement its traffic-control plan. However, the plaintiff failed to establish the “crucial test” of simultaneous control. He was supervised exclusively by the sheriff’s office and independently exercised discretion in directing traffic. The construction company did not control the manner or means of his work. Although the plaintiff’s duties furthered both public safety and the road repair project, the lack of control was dispositive. The Court held the sheriff’s office was the plaintiff’s sole employer at the time of the accident and reversed the Court of Appeals in part.

The 38 page opinion is Lassiter v. Robeson County Sheriff’s Department, Lawyers Weekly No. 010-055-25.