The North Carolina Supreme Court has ruled that a construction company was not a joint employer of an off-duty law enforcement officer and that the Sheriff’s office was solely responsible for workers’ compensation benefits. The case is Lassiter v. Robeson Cty. Sheriff's Dep't, 2025 LX 503605 (N.C. 2025).
Background
Stephen Matthew Lassiter was a deputy employed by the Robeson County Sheriff's Office (RCSO). Lassiter earned additional income taking an approved off-duty assignment directing traffic for Truesdell Corporation, which was performing bridge repairs along I-95.
Truesdell contracted with NC DOT for repairs which required the use of uniformed officers to carry out a traffic control plan. RCSO directed officer assignments, but Truesdell paid the officers directly based on time sheets provided from RCSO.
On March 28, 2019, Lassiter was instructed by his RCSO supervisor to switch positions on the traffic route, and while directing vehicles at his new post, he was struck by a car and thrown into the air, sustaining severe injuries.
Lassiter sought workers' compensation from both the Sheriff’s Office and Truesdell, arguing they were joint employers. The Court of Appeals ruled that Truesdell qualified as a joint employer. Upon appeal, the case was brought before the North Carolina Supreme Court.
The Nature of the Work
Lassiter accepted an approved off-duty assignment to direct traffic for Truesdell while they performed bridge repairs on Interstate I-95. Truesdell had an agreement with the NC DOT, who agreed to provide law enforcement officers and marked vehicles in order to execute a traffic control plan developed by Truesdell and approved by NC DOT.
RCSO supervisors managed the selection of officers, coordination of shifts, handled paperwork such as W-9 forms, and provided direct instructions to the officers. Supervisors were responsible for assigning officers their specific duties along the highway.
On the night of the accident, RCSO determined an additional officer was necessary for the traffic plan and called in Lassiter. Trusdell and NC DOT approved the request. During his shift, Lassiter was switched to a different post by an RCSO Captain. The accident occurred shortly after, resulting in severe injuries and extensive medical treatment.
Joint Employment Doctrine
In deciding the case, the North Carolina Supreme Court looked at the joint employment doctrine and determined whether Lassiter was solely employed by RCSO or whether he was also jointly employed by Truesdell.
The court stated that the joint employment doctrine applies when an employee performs services for two employers in a single piece of work simultaneously. The joint employment doctrine requires that, “a single employee, under contract with two employers, and under simultaneous control of both, simultaneously performs services for both employers, and...the service for each employer is the same as, or closely related to, that for the other.”
The court analyzed each requirement of the joint employment doctrine separately to determine if it applied in this case. The first requirement is whether there existed an employment contract between Lassiter and Truesdell. The employment contract can be express or implied. The court found that an implied contract could be inferred between Lassiter and Truesdell.
The second requirement is the “nature of the work” requirement. To meet this requirement, it must be demonstrated that the service the employee provides for each employer is the same, or similar to, the service provided for the other. The court determined that Lassiter’s traffic control work satisfied both his duties as a police officer and for Truesdell’s construction project.
Simultaneous Control
The final requirement is whether the employee is under simultaneous control of both employers or just one employer. Some factors include whether the employer supplied materials or tools to the employee, the degree of supervision the employer had over the employee, whether the employer had the authority to terminate an employee, and the degree to which the employer assigned duties to the employee.
The court stated that the right to control or direct the details of the work is vitally important in establishing an employer-employee relationship, and looked at several factors to determine who was in control of the officers.
While Truesdell’s traffic control plan determined locations where officers were to be assigned, it was RCSO supervisors who selected which officers would report to specific job sites and set their hours. Truesdell also lacked the authority to reposition or fire an officer; if they wanted to do so they would have had to request it through RCSO.
While on the job sites, officers had a lot of freedom and were able to take breaks without needing approval or direction from Truesdell. Truesdell did not direct the officers in how to carry out their duties; officers relied on their law enforcement experience and training in order to carry out the traffic plan.
Finally, Truesdell did not supply officers with any tools or equipment. On the night of the accident, Lassiter was equipped with either personal items or items provided by RCSO, including a county-owned police car.
The court determined that control of the officers belonged solely to RCSO and that there was no joint control with Truesdell. The court reversed the decision by the Court of Appeals and ruled that RCSO was the sole employer of Lassiter at the time of the accident.
Editor’s Note: The NC Supreme Court considered many factors in determining whether the plaintiff was solely employed by RCSO or was also jointly employed by Truesdell. While the requirements of an employment contract, whether express or implied, and the “nature of the work” requirement were met, the requirement of simultaneous control failed.
Truesdell had minimal control over the officers—they merely designated the locations where officers were needed, while RCSO had control of assigning officers to job sites and setting their hours, had the sole authority to fire or reposition officers, and provided officers with the tools and equipment necessary to carry out their duties.
(Photo credit: xy/Adobe Stock)
This article originally appeared on FC&S Expert Coverage Interpretation and may not be reprinted.
© Touchpoint Markets, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to TMSalesOperations@arc-network.com. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.