In a recent decision, the North Carolina Court of Appeals addressed the question of whether an off-duty law enforcement officer, working on security or traffic control, is considered an employee of the law enforcement division or a private company. The court firmly asserted that such an officer is jointly employed by both entities. The ruling comes in response to the case of Stephen Lassiter vs. Robeson County Sheriff’s Department, Synergy Coverage Solutions, Truesdell Corp., and the Phoenix Insurance Co.
The case originated in 2017 when Truesdell Corp., an infrastructure company, was involved in restoring an Interstate 95 bridge in Robeson County, North Carolina. Truesdell contracted with local police and the Robeson County Sheriff’s Office to provide officers for traffic control. Deputy Stephen Lassiter, a sheriff’s officer, was asked to work traffic on the night of the incident. He was hit by a pickup truck, resulting in severe injuries.
The North Carolina Court of Appeals found that Lassiter was jointly employed by both the sheriff’s office and Truesdell. The decision noted that Lassiter, while acting as a law enforcement officer conducting traffic duty, retained his official status and was neither solely representing a private entity nor engaged in personal business.
This case also marked the court’s first consideration of whether a moonlighting officer should be deemed an independent contractor, excluded from workers’ compensation statutes. The court observed that Lassiter, in his role, had no independent control over traffic direction, was required to follow Truesdell’s traffic plan, and received direct payment for services. The court concluded that an implied contract of employment existed between Lassiter and Truesdell, making the bridge builder liable as a joint employer.
This decision differs from a previous 2016 opinion, as the court clarified that joint employment doesn’t necessitate similar types of work but requires the service provided by the plaintiff to be the same or closely related for each employer.
The ruling challenges the notion that off-duty law enforcement officers performing traffic duty cannot recover from the company they are working for unless that company’s primary business is also traffic duty. The court held that the Industrial Commission did not err in determining that Lassiter was not an independent contractor but erred in finding that Truesdell was not liable as a joint employer.
The case highlights the complexities surrounding the employment status of off-duty law enforcement officers in certain situations and how state courts grapple with such questions.