622 S.W.3d 273
Tex.2021Background
- Stevenson was hired by temporary agency Taylor Smith and assigned to work as a helper on Waste Management garbage trucks; he was seriously injured when a Waste Management employee backed over his leg.
- Stevenson received workers’ compensation benefits from Taylor Smith and then sued Waste Management and the driver in tort; defendants moved for summary judgment invoking the TWCA exclusive-remedy bar.
- Taylor Smith and Waste Management National Services had a Master Agreement labeling supplied personnel (and the agency) as "independent contractors." Waste Management Texas was affiliated but not clearly a signatory.
- Jobsite evidence showed Waste Management (via route managers and the truck driver) set schedule, assignments, training, supervision, and workplace methods for helpers. Taylor Smith did not control daily work.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Waste Management; the court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals, holding as a matter of law that Waste Management was Stevenson’s employer under the TWCA and the exclusive-remedy provision barred his tort claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Stevenson was an employee of Waste Management for TWCA purposes (so exclusive remedy applies) | Stevenson: no evidence he was Waste Management’s employee; he was employed by Taylor Smith | Waste Management: it had the right to and did control the progress, details, and methods of Stevenson’s work | Held: Stevenson was Waste Management’s employee as a matter of law; TWCA exclusive remedy bars the tort claims |
| Whether the Master Agreement’s independent‑contractor label prevents finding employee status or creates a fact issue | Stevenson: the contract labels personnel independent contractors and should control or at least create a fact issue under Newspapers v. Love | Waste Management: contractual labels are a non‑dispositive factor; actual on‑the‑ground control governs per TWCA precedents | Held: The contractual label did not create a genuine fact issue where overwhelming evidence showed Waste Management’s right to control; contract is not dispositive |
Key Cases Cited
- Wingfoot Enterprises v. Alvarado, 111 S.W.3d 134 (Tex. 2003) (client may be co‑employer under TWCA when it directs the details of the worker’s job)
- Garza v. Exel Logistics, Inc., 161 S.W.3d 473 (Tex. 2005) (actual control over work details is central to TWCA employee inquiry)
- City of Bellaire v. Johnson, 400 S.W.3d 922 (Tex. 2013) (temporary worker on garbage route found to be client’s employee as a matter of law)
- Limestone Prods. Distrib., Inc. v. McNamara, 71 S.W.3d 308 (Tex. 2002) (test: right to control progress, details, and methods of work)
- Exxon Corp. v. Perez, 842 S.W.2d 629 (Tex. 1992) (contract allocating control is a factor but not controlling in borrowed‑servant/coverage inquiries)
- Newspapers, Inc. v. Love, 380 S.W.2d 582 (Tex. 1964) (contractual independent‑contractor labels are given effect unless subterfuge or acquiescence in control makes label unreliable)
- Brown v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 984 F.2d 674 (5th Cir. 1993) (borrowed‑servant analysis: contract is not dispositive when other factors overwhelmingly show borrowed‑employee status)