On December 12, 2025, the North Carolina Supreme Court issued a decision in Lassiter v. Robeson County Sheriff’s Department, Synergy Coverage Solutions, Truesdell Corporation, and The Phoenix Insurance Company, No. 54PA24.
Why this Decision Matters
The North Carolina Supreme Court’s ruling in Lassiter v. Robeson County Sheriff’s Department clarifies when businesses may (or may not) be considered joint employers under workers’ compensation law.
If your company partners with governmental agencies or other companies for project work, this decision helps define liability boundaries and underscores the importance of clear contractual terms.
Case Overview
Issue: Was an off-duty law enforcement officer directing traffic jointly employed by both the Sheriff’s Office and Truesdell Corporation (a highway contractor)?
Key Facts:
- Pursuant to a contract with the North Carolina Department of Transportation (DOT), Truesdell was engaged in repairing roads. A provision of the contract required Truesdell to “[f]urnish” and “[u]se uniformed Law Enforcement Officers and marked Law Enforcement vehicles . . . to direct or control traffic . . .”
- Robeson County Sheriff’s Office (RCSO) provided off-duty law enforcement officers to direct traffic.
- RCSO provided W-9s for each officer. When Truesdell issued payments, it did so based on time sheets collected from RCSO. RCSO had the authority to select which, and at what time, officers would report to the off-duty work for Truesdell. RCSO also had the authority to discharge an RCSO officer from the off-duty job site if necessary.
- Plaintiff was an officer provided by RCSO who was struck by a vehicle while directing traffic. He pursued a workers’ compensation claim against RCSO and Truesdell as joint employers.
- Holding: The Supreme Court ruled the officer was solely employed by the Sheriff’s Office, not jointly employed by Truesdell.
- Reasoning: Payment alone does not create joint employment. Control over work details is the critical factor.
Key Legal Principles:
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.” Texas Gulf, 83 N.C. App. at 636.
Control Test: The Court will look at various factors indicating control, including:
- Whether the alleged employer supplied materials or tools for the plaintiff’s work;
- The degree to which the alleged employer supervised the Plaintiff;
- Whether the alleged employer retained discretion to terminate the Plaintiff;
- The degree to which the alleged employer assigned duties to the Plaintiff; and
- The degree to which the alleged employer controlled the manner and method by which the Plaintiff carried out his or her duties.
McGuine, 270 N.C. App. at 703 (citing Henderson, 70 N.C. App. at 410-11).
Principle Takeaways for Businesses:
- Define Roles Clearly: Contracts should specify which entity controls the work and bears workers’ compensation responsibility.
- Avoid Ambiguity: Include provisions addressing liability for injuries and employment status when using off-duty officers or shared labor.
- Assess Control: Payment or awareness of work does not equal control; operational oversight matters most.
Recommendations for what you should do now:
- Train Project Managers on the importance of maintaining clear supervisory boundaries.
- Review Existing Contracts with vendors and agencies for clarity on employment status and liability.
- Update Templates to include explicit workers’ compensation responsibility clauses.
