Jimmy Dean Austin v. Jon Templin (mem. dec.)
93A02-1705-EX-1187
| Ind. Ct. App. | Oct 18, 2017Background
- Austin was hired in September 2014 as a full-time farm hand on Tem plin's family farm, performing a variety of farm-related tasks.
- Templin used three semi-trucks licensed for farm use only, and Austin drove them to haul harvested grain to on-site storage and to commercial plants; he did not hold a CDL.
- Austin's primary work during harvest season involved loading and hauling grain, including driving the trucks as an integral part of farm operations.
- On December 10, 2014, Austin was injured loading grain when he exited a semi-truck cab and slipped, injuring his left arm.
- The Indiana Worker’s Compensation Board concluded Austin was a farm or agricultural employee and thus exempt from benefits under Indiana law; the Board adopted the single member decision on review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Austin was a farm employee for purposes of the farm exemption. | Austin (plaintiff) argues he was a commercial laborer due to driving duties. | Templin (defendant) argues Austin was a farm employee based on whole-character of work. | Farm employee; board correctly applied exemption. |
| Is the whole-character test controlling in classifying employment status? | Argues task-level focus on driving should define status. | Maintains overall farm-related duties govern classification under the statute. | Yes; whole-character test governs. |
| Do driving duties disqualify farm-employment status when no CDL and farm-use trucks are involved? | Driving predominates and resembles commercial trucking. | Driving is integral to farming harvest and not commercial trucking. | Driving was integral to harvest; remains farm employee. |
Key Cases Cited
- O’Keefe v. Top Notch Farms, 79 N.E.3d 1000 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (whole-character test for farm employment)
- Rocky River Farms, Inc. v. Porter, 925 N.E.2d 496 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (farm vs. agricultural employee distinction)
- Hahn v. Grimm, 198 N.E.2d 93 (Ind. App. 1935) (equipment on rental basis context; dual-status considerations)
- In re Boyer, 117 N.E.507 (Ind. App. 1917) (dual-status/indeterminate employment status (historic context))
- Gerlach v. Woodke, 881 N.E.2d 1006 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (dual-status workers; relevance to farm work)
- Heffner v. White, 45 N.E.2d 342 (Ind. App. 1942) (farm-employee considerations in farm-work context)
- Makeever v. Martin, 174 N.E.2d 517 (Ind. App. 1931) (independent contractor/farm-work distinctions)