Lemmerman v. Atlanta Williams Oil Co. (NC 1986)
FACTS:
-The employee worked as a cashier in the employer's convenience store.
-The employee's child would come to work with the employee and pick up trash, put away cigarettes, stock bottles in the cooler, and perform other odd jobs for which the employer's manager paid him $ 1.00 per day. -The child slipped on the sidewalk on the employer's property and cut his hand, and the employee and the child filed their action against the employer for damages.
HOLDING:
The court held that the lower court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the employee's and the child's complaint because (1) there was ample evidence to support the finding that the child was an employee because the employer's manager hired him to do odd jobs as needed for the employer, the jobs that the child performed were in the course of the employer's business, and the child was paid for his services; (2) the child was injured while performing the tasks he had been hired to do; and (3) as an employee, the child's injuries fell under the Workmen's Compensation Act pursuant to statute and common law remedies for child's injuries were excluded.
---NOTES BELOW---
FACTS:
Mom works at store, brings son along who sometimes does odd jobs at store, mgr pays $1 a day out of his pocket. Son slips and sues for negligence.
ARGUMENTS:
D: he is ‘ee and claim goes to Worker's Comp - no Subject Matter Jurisdiction.
P: bc illegally employed, can’t be ‘ee. Tort claim.
RULES:
R: 1. he was paid 2. for work for D corp 3. by someone authorized to hire for D corp. 4. He’s ‘ee even if not on payroll, no taxes filed, too young, etc. Wcomp.
ANALYSIS:
“failure to follow technical procedures/forms [FICA, income taxes] is not controlling on the issue of whether an er-ee relationship exists.” Not hired as a personal ee of supervisor bc tasks performed were part of D’s busn, not personal affairs.
Dissent: right to demand payment from D is an essential element of determining ee status- not proved by D here.
Recommended Outlines for Employment and Labor Law:
Employment Law in a Nutshell
Gilbert Law Summaries: Labor Law
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
FACTS:
-The employee worked as a cashier in the employer's convenience store.
-The employee's child would come to work with the employee and pick up trash, put away cigarettes, stock bottles in the cooler, and perform other odd jobs for which the employer's manager paid him $ 1.00 per day. -The child slipped on the sidewalk on the employer's property and cut his hand, and the employee and the child filed their action against the employer for damages.
HOLDING:
The court held that the lower court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the employee's and the child's complaint because (1) there was ample evidence to support the finding that the child was an employee because the employer's manager hired him to do odd jobs as needed for the employer, the jobs that the child performed were in the course of the employer's business, and the child was paid for his services; (2) the child was injured while performing the tasks he had been hired to do; and (3) as an employee, the child's injuries fell under the Workmen's Compensation Act pursuant to statute and common law remedies for child's injuries were excluded.
---NOTES BELOW---
FACTS:
Mom works at store, brings son along who sometimes does odd jobs at store, mgr pays $1 a day out of his pocket. Son slips and sues for negligence.
ARGUMENTS:
D: he is ‘ee and claim goes to Worker's Comp - no Subject Matter Jurisdiction.
P: bc illegally employed, can’t be ‘ee. Tort claim.
RULES:
R: 1. he was paid 2. for work for D corp 3. by someone authorized to hire for D corp. 4. He’s ‘ee even if not on payroll, no taxes filed, too young, etc. Wcomp.
ANALYSIS:
“failure to follow technical procedures/forms [FICA, income taxes] is not controlling on the issue of whether an er-ee relationship exists.” Not hired as a personal ee of supervisor bc tasks performed were part of D’s busn, not personal affairs.
Dissent: right to demand payment from D is an essential element of determining ee status- not proved by D here.
Recommended Outlines for Employment and Labor Law:
Employment Law in a Nutshell
Gilbert Law Summaries: Labor Law
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
No comments:
Post a Comment