Lemmerman v. A.T. Williams Oil Co.

Last updated

Lemmerman v. A.T. Williams Oil Co.
Court North Carolina Supreme Court
Full case nameR. Douglas Lemmerman, Guardian Ad Litem For Jonathan Shane Tucker, a Minor, and Sylvia A. Tucker v. A.T. Williams Oil Company
DecidedNovember 18, 1986 (1986-11-18)
Citation(s) 318 N.C. 577; 350 S.E.2d 83
Case history
Appealed from79 N.C. App. 642, 339 S.E.2d 820 (1986)
Subsequent action(s)Rehearing denied, 318 N.C. 704, 351 S.E.2d 736 (1986)
Case opinions
Decision by Henry Frye
Dissent Harry Martin

Lemmerman v. A.T. Williams Oil Co., 318 N.C. 577, 350 S.E.2d 83 (1986), was a case before the Supreme Court of North Carolina, which hinged on the question of whether the plaintiff met the definition as an "employee" of the A.T. Williams Oil Co. under the state's Workers' Compensation Act. [1]

Contents

It appears as a principal case in the section of the Rothstein, Liebman employment law casebook discussing the foundations of the employer-employee relationship. [2]

Facts

Shane Tucker, age 8, would accompany his mother to work, where she was a cashier at the Wilco convenience store on Wendover Avenue in Greensboro. There, he would pick up trash, put away cigarettes, stock bottles in the cooler, and perform other odd jobs, for which the employer's manager paid him $1.00 per day.

According to the court, "A fair reading of the child's testimony discloses that he clearly expected to be paid for his efforts." His mother "testified that her understanding was that the child was going to be paid for what he did. Although she told Schneiderman originally that Shane would work without being paid, he rejected this offer and told both her and the child that he would pay Shane for his work. She believed that Schneiderman paid Shane a dollar a day."

On December 1, 1982, Shane slipped on the sidewalk on the employer's property and cut his hand. On June 26, 1984, Shane and his mother filed a complaint, which alleged in essence that Shane's injuries (pain wages, medical expenses) were proximately caused by defendant's negligence.

The defendant's answer raised as one of its defenses lack of subject matter jurisdiction: It asserted that the child Shane was its employee as defined by the Workers' Compensation Act and that the Industrial Commission accordingly had exclusive jurisdiction over plaintiffs' claim. (By statute, the Superior Court is divested of original jurisdiction of all actions which come within the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act.)

Judgment

Trial court

Based on several evidentiary findings, the judge concluded that Shane was an employee injured within the course and scope of his employment with defendant as defined in the Workers' Compensation Act.

Court of Appeals

Plaintiffs appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed on the question of whether the evidence supported the conclusion that plaintiff Shane was an employee of defendant. [3]

First, the court confirmed that "the question of whether [Shane] was defendant's employee as defined by the Act is clearly jurisdictional." The court noted that the fact that the minor may have been illegally employed would in no way bar the defendant from raising this jurisdictional defense, because the Act specifically includes within its provisions illegally employed minors. To this point, it cited the claim in Burgess v. Gibbs that "A universal principal as old as the law is that the proceedings of a court without jurisdiction of the subject matter are a nullity." [4]

Second, after reviewing the evidence, the court expressed the opinion that "this evidence amply supports the trial judge's findings that Schneiderman, who had the authority to hire and fire employees, hired the minor plaintiff to do odd jobs as needed in defendant's service station/convenience store business. Specifically, these tasks included stocking cigarettes and drinks, and picking up trash. At the time of the accident, Shane was engaged in doing these tasks."

Third, the court rebutted the plaintiff's three counterarguments for why Shane could not have been an employee:

  1. ... that "Schneiderman did not comply with certain procedural formalities" (he did not take an application from Shane, or report him on the list of employees he turned into his supervisor for withholding purposes; his normal practice was to pay employees from the cash register, but he paid Shane from his pocket). The court explained: "We do not believe that any of these factors is dispositive. Our Court of Appeals has held that failure to follow technical procedures such as withholding F.I.C.A. and income taxes is not controlling on the issue of whether an employer-employee relationship exists. We also do not think that Schneiderman's method of paying Shane was as significant under the facts of this case as it might otherwise be, because all wages came out of Schneiderman's commission. He therefore paid all of the employees at Wilco out of his own money."
  2. ... that "Shane was not an employee but instead performed gratuitous services". The court explained: a) Schneiderman's testimony denying that he hired Shane was rejected by the trial judge. b) Tucker's original statement to Schneiderman that he did not have to pay the child supports the conclusion that Shane was an employee, because "Schneiderman was offered the chance to avail himself of Shane's gratuitous services, but he specifically rejected it and said that he wanted to pay the child for his work."
  3. ... "that if Shane was an employee, he was Schneiderman's personal employee". Rejecting this, the court explained: "Schneiderman had the authority to hire employees for the defendant, and the evidence shows and the trial judge found that the tasks the child performed were in the course of defendant's business, not Schneiderman's personal affairs."

Dissent

Justice Webb put three arguments forward in dissent.

  1. The majority corporation permits the defendant corporation to enrich itself as a result of its own wrongdoing. Hiring Shane would be a direct violation of the statute making it unlawful for employers to employ children thirteen years of age or less; and "It is a basic principle of law and equity that no man shall be permitted to take advantage of his own wrong" -- "especially applicable where, as here, the power of the parties is so disparate"—i.e., "The inequity of defendant's plea in bar is thus magnified by the relationship of the parties."
  2. Agreeing with the majority that "the right to demand payment from the employer, A.T. Williams Oil Company, is an essential element of the employment status," "defendant has failed to produce a shred of evidence that the eight-year-old child had a right to demand his services from A.T. Williams Oil Company. Also, there is no evidence that plaintiff child could have made such a demand from Schneiderman, albeit defendant argues that plaintiff was its employee and not Schneiderman's. ... On the other hand, the record is replete with evidence that plaintiff child was not an employee of defendant's. Shane was not a listed employee for workers' compensation purposes; his name was not reported to the defendant corporation for tax withholding purposes; Schneiderman testified explicitly that Shane was not an employee."
  3. "Shane was on the premises not as an employee of the corporate defendant, but because it was necessary in order for his mother to work." "This is entirely consistent with the problem of a working mother who needs employment but must also supervise her child. ... Such are the demands of her modern society."

Significance

In Employment Law: Cases and Materials, [5] it is used to outline the employer-employee relationship. Subsequent to the case there are five notes.

The Commission concludes that the ancient doctrine of master and servant provides a poor vehicle for delivering federal employment policy into the twenty-first century. The law in this area should be modernized and streamlined: there is no need for every federal employment and labor statute to have its own definition of employee. We recommend that Congress adopt a single, coherent concept of employee and apply it across the board in employment and labor law.

Notes

  1. ↑ Lemmerman v. A.T. Williams Oil Co., 318 N.C. 577; 350 S.E.2d 83 (1986).
  2. ↑ Employment Law: Cases and Materials. Rothstein, Liebman. Sixth Edition. Foundation Press. Page 23.
  3. ↑ Lemmerman v. A.T. Williams Oil Co., 79 N.C. App. 642, 339 S.E. 2d 820 (1986).
  4. ↑ Burgess v. Gibbs, 22 N.C. 462, 465, 137 S.E.2d 806 (1964).
  5. ↑ Employment Law: Cases and Materials. Rothstein, Liebman. 6th Edition, 2007. Foundation Press.

Related Research Articles

A tort is a civil wrong that causes a claimant to suffer loss or harm, resulting in legal liability for the person who commits the tortious act. Tort law can be contrasted with criminal law, which deals with criminal wrongs that are punishable by the state. While criminal law aims to punish individuals who commit crimes, tort law aims to compensate individuals who suffer harm as a result of the actions of others. Some wrongful acts, such as assault and battery, can result in both a civil lawsuit and a criminal prosecution in countries where the civil and criminal legal systems are separate. Tort law may also be contrasted with contract law, which provides civil remedies after breach of a duty that arises from a contract. Obligations in both tort and criminal law are more fundamental and are imposed regardless of whether the parties have a contract.

In United States labor law, at-will employment is an employer's ability to dismiss an employee for any reason, and without warning, as long as the reason is not illegal. When an employee is acknowledged as being hired "at will", courts deny the employee any claim for loss resulting from the dismissal. The rule is justified by its proponents on the basis that an employee may be similarly entitled to leave their job without reason or warning. The practice is seen as unjust by those who view the employment relationship as characterized by inequality of bargaining power.

Respondeat superior is a doctrine that a party is responsible for acts of their agents. For example, in the United States, there are circumstances when an employer is liable for acts of employees performed within the course of their employment. This rule is also called the master-servant rule, recognized in both common law and civil law jurisdictions.

Garnishment is a legal process for collecting a monetary judgment on behalf of a plaintiff from a defendant. Garnishment allows the plaintiff to take the money or property of the debtor from the person or institution that holds that property. A similar legal mechanism called execution allows the seizure of money or property held directly by the debtor.

In Australia, Torts are common law actions for civil wrongs. Unless barred by statute, individuals are entitled to sue other people, or the state; for the purpose of obtaining a legal remedy for the wrong committed.

Forum non conveniens (FNC) is a mostly common law legal doctrine through which a court acknowledges that another forum or court where the case might have been brought is a more appropriate venue for a legal case, and transfers the case to such a forum. A change of venue might be ordered, for example, to transfer a case to a jurisdiction within which an accident or incident underlying the litigation occurred and where all the witnesses reside.

Liability insurance is a part of the general insurance system of risk financing to protect the purchaser from the risks of liabilities imposed by lawsuits and similar claims and protects the insured if the purchaser is sued for claims that come within the coverage of the insurance policy.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">English tort law</span> Branch of English law concerning civil wrongs

English tort law concerns the compensation for harm to people's rights to health and safety, a clean environment, property, their economic interests, or their reputations. A "tort" is a wrong in civil, rather than criminal law, that usually requires a payment of money to make up for damage that is caused. Alongside contracts and unjust enrichment, tort law is usually seen as forming one of the three main pillars of the law of obligations.

In contract law, a non-compete clause, restrictive covenant, or covenant not to compete (CNC), is a clause under which one party agrees not to enter into or start a similar profession or trade in competition against another party. Some courts refer to these as "restrictive covenants". As a contract provision, a CNC is bound by traditional contract requirements including the consideration doctrine.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Employment Relations Act 2000</span> Statute of the Parliament of New Zealand

The New Zealand Employment Relations Act 2000 is a statute of the Parliament of New Zealand. It was substantially amended by the Employment Relations Amendment Act 2001 and by the ERAA 2004.

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), is a US employment law case by the United States Supreme Court regarding the burdens and nature of proof in proving a Title VII case and the order in which plaintiffs and defendants present proof. It was the seminal case in the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework.

Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 550 U.S. 618 (2007), is an employment discrimination decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. Employers cannot be sued under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 over race or gender pay discrimination if the claims are based on decisions made by the employer 180 days ago or more. Justice Alito held for the five-justice majority that each paycheck received did not constitute a discrete discriminatory act, even if it was affected by a prior decision outside the time limit. Ledbetter's claim of the “paycheck accrual rule” was rejected. The decision did not prevent plaintiffs from suing under other laws, like the Equal Pay Act, which has a three-year deadline for most sex discrimination claims, or 42 U.S.C. 1981, which has a four-year deadline for suing over race discrimination.

<i>Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd</i>

Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2002] UKHL 22 is a leading case on causation in English tort law. It concerned malignant mesothelioma, a deadly disease caused by breathing asbestos fibres. The House of Lords approved the test of "materially increasing risk" of harm, as a deviation in some circumstances from the ordinary "balance of probabilities" test under the "but for" standard.

<i>Wilson v Racher</i> UK labour law case concerning constructive dismissal

Wilson v Racher [1974] ICR 428 is a UK labour law case concerning constructive dismissal. It serves as an example of an employer being found to have wrongfully dismissed an employee, because of the employer's own bad behaviour. Edmund-Davies LJ also made an important statement about the modern employment relationship,

What would today be regarded as almost an attitude of Czar-serf, which is to be found in some of the older cases where a dismissed employee failed to recover damages, would, I venture to think, be decided differently today. We have by now come to realise that a contract of service imposes upon the parties a duty of mutual respect.

Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (1981), is a United States labor law case of the United States Supreme Court.

Disparate treatment is one kind of unlawful discrimination in US labor law. In the United States, it means unequal behavior toward someone because of a protected characteristic under Title VII of the United States Civil Rights Act. This contrasts with disparate impact, where an employer applies a neutral rule that treats everyone equally in form, but has a disadvantageous effect on some people of a protected characteristic compared to others.

<i>Campbell v. General Dynamics Government Systems Corp.</i>

In Campbell v. General Dynamics Gov't Sys. Corp., 407 F.3d 546, the First Circuit had to consider the enforceability of a mandatory arbitration agreement, contained in a dispute resolution policy linked to an e-mailed company-wide announcement, insofar as it applies to employment discrimination claims brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Under the Court's analysis, the question turned on whether the employer provided minimally sufficient notice of the contractual nature of the e-mailed policy and of the concomitant waiver of an employee's right to access a judicial forum. The Court weighed the attendant circumstances; concluded that the notice was wanting and that, therefore, enforcement of the waiver would be inappropriate; and upheld the district court's denial of the employer's motion to stay proceedings and compel the employee to submit his claim to arbitration.

Wolfaardt v Fedlife Assurance Ltd is an important, precedent-setting case in South African labour law, decided by Odendaal AJ on August 31, 1999. It was heard in the Witwatersrand Local Division.

Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274 (1977), often shortened to Mt. Healthy v. Doyle, was a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court decision arising from a fired teacher's lawsuit against his former employer, the Mount Healthy City Schools. The Court considered three issues: whether federal-question jurisdiction existed in the case, whether the Eleventh Amendment barred federal lawsuits against school districts, and whether the First and Fourteenth Amendments prevented the district, as a government agency, from firing or otherwise disciplining an employee for constitutionally protected speech on a matter of public concern where the same action might have taken place for other, unprotected activities. Justice William Rehnquist wrote the opinion.

In law, wrongful dismissal, also called wrongful termination or wrongful discharge, is a situation in which an employee's contract of employment has been terminated by the employer, where the termination breaches one or more terms of the contract of employment, or a statute provision or rule in employment law. Laws governing wrongful dismissal vary according to the terms of the employment contract, as well as under the laws and public policies of the jurisdiction.

References

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.