539 S.W.3d 574
Ark.2018Background
- Deputy Cleon Morgan, Sr., a full-time Jefferson County deputy, did off-duty security work at a Brookshire grocery store when he sprained his ankle chasing a shoplifter on February 19, 2014.
- Deputies had an approved off-duty work policy: they had to obtain permission from the sheriff, wear their uniforms and carry departmental equipment, could make arrests, and had department scheduling/approval requirements and a 20-hour cap.
- Morgan was paid $18/hour by Brookshire with no taxes withheld or benefits provided; Brookshire did not supply equipment, train him, or directly supervise his on-site duties.
- The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission found Brookshire and the Jefferson County Sheriff’s Department to be joint employers and awarded benefits; Brookshire appealed arguing Morgan was an independent contractor.
- The Supreme Court reviewed de novo (treating the appeal as if originally filed here), applied the Restatement (Second) of Agency § 220 factors, and reversed the Commission, holding Morgan was an independent contractor.
Issues
| Issue | Brookshire's Argument | Morgan's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Brookshire can be liable if Morgan was an independent contractor | If Morgan was an independent contractor, Brookshire cannot be liable for workers’ compensation | Morgan relied on Commission finding that he was an employee/jointly employed | Court: An hirer of an independent contractor is not liable; record supports independent-contractor status, so Brookshire not liable |
| Whether traditional Restatement §220 factors show employee or independent contractor status | Factors show Brookshire lacked control over details, didn’t supply tools, didn’t train, and Morgan performed distinct law‑enforcement work—independent contractor | Commission concluded facts supported employee/joint‑employment | Court: §220 factors (control, tools, training, business identity) weigh for independent contractor; reversed Commission |
| Whether the court of appeals considered irrelevant factors in analyzing status | Brookshire argued the appellate analysis included irrelevant factors | Morgan/Commission argued totality of facts permitted consideration of all relevant circumstances | Court: Focused on §220 factors and found little to rebut independent‑contractor characterization |
| Whether the court of appeals inserted facts into the record | Brookshire contended the appellate court misstated or added facts | Commission/Morgan relied on record evidence and inferences to support employment finding | Court: Did not credit any disputed factual insertions that would alter §220 analysis; vacated commission decision |
Key Cases Cited
- Dillaha Fruit Co. v. LaTourette, 262 Ark. 434 (1977) (joint‑employment requires employer–employee relation be maintained simultaneously)
- Blankenship v. Overholt, 301 Ark. 476 (1990) (endorses Restatement §220 factors for employee/independent‑contractor analysis)
- ConAgra Foods, Inc. v. Draper, 372 Ark. 361 (2008) (discusses control and Restatement §220 factors in employment status cases)
- Ark. Transit Homes, Inc. v. Aetna Life & Cas., 341 Ark. 317 (2000) (general rule that hirer of independent contractor is not liable for workers’ compensation)
- Plante v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 319 Ark. 126 (1994) (standard of review: affirm Commission if supported by substantial evidence)
- Moore v. Long Bell Lumber Co., 228 Ark. 345 (1957) (no fixed rule; employee/independent‑contractor status is fact‑specific)