Case File
A construction contractor’s lack of control over a law enforcement officer’s work directing traffic around a project meant that it was not the officer’s joint employer for workers’ compensation purposes. Simply Research subscribers have access to compliance knowledge from around the states, including North Carolina.
Case
Lassiter v. Robeson County Sheriff’s Department, No. 54PA24 (N.C. 12/12/25)
What Happened?
A law enforcement officer for a North Carolina county sheriff’s department earned additional income by accepting approved off-duty employment opportunities.
One of these opportunities was directing traffic for a contractor that was completing a road project for the state. During a shift performing this off-duty work, the officer was struck by a vehicle and thrown into the air. He sustained serious injuries and received extensive medical treatment as a result.
The officer sought to obtain workers’ compensation from the department and the contractor.
Following a hearing, a deputy commissioner entered an opinion and an award, determining that the officer was employed by the department but not the contractor.
The officer appealed, and the full commission affirmed. The department appealed to the Court of Appeals, which held that the full commission correctly concluded that the officer was not an independent contractor but erred in concluding that the road contractor was not liable as a joint employer.
The contractor and its insurer appealed to the North Carolina Supreme Court, which took up the issue of whether an employer-employee relationship existed between the officer and the contractor.
Rule of Law
Under North Carolina law, a workers’ compensation claimant may rely upon two doctrines to prove he is an employee of two employers at the same:
(1) The lent employment doctrine, which arises when an employer lends an employee to another party, referred to as the “special employer.”
(2) The joint employment doctrine, which applies when an employee simultaneously performs services for two employers in a single piece of work.
Workers’ Comp 101: For the lent employment doctrine to apply, it must be established that: 1) the employee has made a contract of hire, express or implied, with the special employer; 2) the work being done is essentially that of the special employer; and 3) the special employer has the right to control the details of the work.
The joint employment doctrine requires that a single employee, under contract with two employers, and under the simultaneous control of both, simultaneously performs services for both employers, and the service for each employer is the same as, or is closely related to, that for the other.
What the North Carolina Supreme Court Said
The North Carolina Supreme Court found that the joint employment doctrine applied to the officer’s case because the officer was not under simultaneous control of both employers.
The department controlled officers’ work at the site, so much so that the contractor did not even possess the authority to reposition an LEOs at the site. Moreover, LEOs exercised considerable independence, and were able to take breaks and leave work without the contractor’s permission.
“In fact, in the event of a county-related emergency, LEOs could be called off the job site to respond,” the court explained. Because of this lack of control, the joint employment doctrine did not apply to the officer’s case.
Thus, the North Carolina Supreme Court held that the department was the officer’s sole employer.
Verdict: The North Carolina Supreme Court reversed portion of the Court of Appeals decision that held that the contractor qualified as a joint employer.
Takeaway
A joint employment relationship arises where a single employee, under contract with two employers, and under the simultaneous control of both, simultaneously performs services for both employers, and those services for each employer is the same as, or is closely related to, that for the other.
