Brookshire Grocery Co. v. Morgan
2017 Ark. App. 387
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Appellee Cleon Morgan, a full-time Jefferson County deputy sheriff, worked part time (about 10 hours/week) as a store security guard for appellant Brookshire Grocery Company. He used county-issued equipment and retained arrest powers while on the job.
- Morgan injured his ankle on February 19, 2014, while chasing a shoplifting suspect at Brookshire; he missed work and sought treatment through the county after the carrier initially denied the Department’s claim.
- Brookshire paid Morgan hourly with no taxes withheld, provided no training, benefits, or equipment, and scheduling was handled informally by a fellow deputy; Brookshire’s managers did not directly supervise day-to-day activities.
- The ALJ found Morgan was a dual/joint employee of both the County and Brookshire and that both employers were liable for workers’ compensation benefits; the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission affirmed and adopted the ALJ’s decision.
- Brookshire appealed, arguing Morgan was either acting as an on-duty deputy (solely the County’s employee) or was an independent contractor for Brookshire at the time of injury.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Employment status at time of injury: employee v. independent contractor | Morgan: Was performing Brookshire-paid security duties; thus Brookshire was an employer | Brookshire: No right to control means/methods; no training, benefits, or equipment — independent contractor | Morgan was a Brookshire employee for purposes of the injury (dual employment) |
| Which employer controlled the work that produced the injury | Morgan/County: Department policies applied; Morgan acted as law-enforcement professional | Brookshire: County retained arrest authority; Brookshire did not direct law-enforcement methods | Brookshire had sufficient control over the specific act (charging/detaining shoplifter) to be a special employer |
| Whether work furthered Brookshire’s business and was part of its regular business | Morgan: Appellee’s security duties were performed to protect Brookshire’s store and merchandise | Brookshire: Selling groceries, not a security business; duties overlapped with deputy duties | Court: Employing security guards is a regular, ongoing aspect of Brookshire’s business; Morgan’s actions furthered Brookshire’s interests |
| Applicability of dual-employment doctrine and exclusivity | Morgan: Dual employment applies; both employers liable | Brookshire: Not a dual employee; injury arose from county duties | Dual-employment doctrine applies; both employers (County and Brookshire) are liable/joint employers |
Key Cases Cited
- Blankenship v. Overholt, 786 S.W.2d 814 (Ark. 1990) (factors to determine employee vs. independent contractor)
- ConAgra Foods, Inc. v. Draper, 276 S.W.3d 244 (Ark. 2008) (right-to-control is principal factor in employee/independent-contractor analysis)
- Daniels v. Riley’s Health & Fitness Centers, 840 S.W.2d 177 (Ark. 1992) (dual-employment doctrine applied where special employer had right to control and work furthered special employer)
- Cook v. Recovery Corp., 911 S.W.2d 581 (Ark. 1995) (both employers may benefit from employment relationship supporting joint liability)
- Brotherton v. White River Area Agency on Aging, 220 S.W.3d 219 (Ark. App. 2005) (employee may work for multiple employers simultaneously; joint liability if controlled by both)