Court of Appeals Reverses Grant on Summary Judgment on Exclusive Remedy Issue Involving Employment Broker and Customer
Thompson v. ATI Products, Inc., No. 14-1765 (Iowa App. Aug. 19, 2015), involved a situation where plaintiff was hired by an employment broker, Aventure Staffing and Professional Services, who placed him at ATI, where he was seriously injured on the first day of work. Plaintiff filed a workers' compensation claim against Aventure and was provided with benefits. He also filed suit against ATI for negligence. ATI moved for summary judgment, claiming it was a "special employer" as a matter of law and arguing that the exclusive remedy provisions of the Iowa Code, section 85.20, barred the negligence action. The district court found that no issue of material fact existed and granted summary judgment, finding that an implied contract of employment had been created that that Thompson's action was barred.
Plaintiff appealed, arguing that in a "borrowed servant" situation such as this, the primary focus was whether the parties intended that an employment situation be created, and noting that there was an issue of fact on this issue.
The court noted that the question of whether a contract of hire exists is ordinarily a question of fact, after noting that a worker can have more than a single employer. The court concluded, viewing the facts in the most favorable light to Thompson, that a reasonable juror could find that he was the exclusive employee of Aventure and not a special employee of ATI. The court noted that the language of the contract between Aventure and ATI supported an inference that plaintiff remained exclusively an employee of Aventure even while working in ATI's facility. Plaintiff had also signed a document indicating he was an employee of Aventure and not of ATI (or any other place to which he was assigned).
Because plaintiff only worked at ATI a very brief period of time, there was little evidence presented concerning the amount of control over his performance by ATI. The court noted that Aventure employees generally worked under the control of ATI and were treated no differently than other ATI employees. ATI argued that the overwhelming majority of jurisdictions had determined that in the broker/temporary employer situation, the temporary employer was protected from tort liability by the exclusive remedy provisions of the codes of various states.
The court ultimately concluded that reasonable minds could differ on the question of whether both Aventure and ATI were employers and because of this, the district court erred in determining the existence of an implied contract and granting summary judgment. The case was remanded for further proceedings to determine whether or not both entities were employers or not.
Plaintiff appealed, arguing that in a "borrowed servant" situation such as this, the primary focus was whether the parties intended that an employment situation be created, and noting that there was an issue of fact on this issue.
The court noted that the question of whether a contract of hire exists is ordinarily a question of fact, after noting that a worker can have more than a single employer. The court concluded, viewing the facts in the most favorable light to Thompson, that a reasonable juror could find that he was the exclusive employee of Aventure and not a special employee of ATI. The court noted that the language of the contract between Aventure and ATI supported an inference that plaintiff remained exclusively an employee of Aventure even while working in ATI's facility. Plaintiff had also signed a document indicating he was an employee of Aventure and not of ATI (or any other place to which he was assigned).
Because plaintiff only worked at ATI a very brief period of time, there was little evidence presented concerning the amount of control over his performance by ATI. The court noted that Aventure employees generally worked under the control of ATI and were treated no differently than other ATI employees. ATI argued that the overwhelming majority of jurisdictions had determined that in the broker/temporary employer situation, the temporary employer was protected from tort liability by the exclusive remedy provisions of the codes of various states.
The court ultimately concluded that reasonable minds could differ on the question of whether both Aventure and ATI were employers and because of this, the district court erred in determining the existence of an implied contract and granting summary judgment. The case was remanded for further proceedings to determine whether or not both entities were employers or not.
Thank you for your great post. It will be very helpful for us and It is really very informative piece of content regarding Workers Compensation
ReplyDelete