The company's own deposition sank its workers' comp defense
A temp worker's arm got caught in a cement mixer. Then the company said he wasn't their employee.
The worker was placed at Johnson Concrete Company through staffing agency Labor Finders in March 2022. Two months in, a company employee told him to clean dried cement from a mixer's blades. His right arm became trapped beneath one, causing extensive injuries to his arm, wrist, and hand.
He filed a workers' compensation claim against Labor Finders. He also sued Johnson Concrete in Rowan County Superior Court for negligence, gross negligence, and punitive damages.
Johnson Concrete's defense was blunt: the Workers' Compensation Act barred the lawsuit entirely. If the worker was the company's employee, workers' comp was his only remedy - and the superior court had no jurisdiction. The trial court agreed and granted the company partial summary judgment.
The North Carolina Court of Appeals reversed that decision on October 7, 2026, in a 2-1 ruling.
The contract between Johnson Concrete and Labor Finders stated that all temporary workers assigned by the agency "are employees of Labor Finders." The staffing agency handled hiring, wages, benefits, payroll taxes, unemployment contributions, and workers' compensation insurance. Johnson Concrete was responsible for training and on-site supervision.
Then came the deposition. Johnson Concrete's own corporate representative confirmed the worker was not the company's employee, received no wages or benefits from it, was not on its workers' compensation policy, and that the company's premiums were unaffected by his injury.
Under North Carolina's dual employment doctrines - joint employment and lent employee - the threshold question is whether the worker had a contract of hire with the alleged employer. No express contract existed, and the record showed no implied one either.
A dissenting judge argued the contract's training and supervision provisions, plus the fact the hiring clause did not use the word "exclusively," were enough to establish an implied contract. The majority disagreed.
The case returns to the trial court for proceedings on the negligence claims.
For HR teams that rely on staffing agencies, the practical takeaway is direct: a company cannot treat a temp worker as someone else's employee in every respect and then claim employer status when it provides a legal shield.
The underlying negligence claims have not been adjudicated. The decision is an appellate ruling on jurisdiction only.
