The North Carolina Court of Appeals recently reversed a lower court's decision in the case of Robert L. Jefferson v. Johnson Concrete Company, No. COA26-41. This ruling, issued on October 7, 2026, affects workers who may be injured while working for companies through staffing agencies. The court found that the trial court had made an error in granting partial summary judgment to Johnson Concrete, which could have significant implications for how workers' compensation claims are handled in similar situations.
Robert Jefferson, the plaintiff, was assigned to work for Johnson Concrete by Labor Finders, a staffing agency. On May 4, 2022, Jefferson suffered serious injuries while performing a task directed by Johnson Concrete. He filed a lawsuit against the company on April 2, 2024, claiming negligence and seeking damages. The case raised questions about whether Jefferson was considered an employee of Johnson Concrete and whether the North Carolina Workers’ Compensation Act applied to his situation.
The dispute began when Jefferson's attorneys argued that he was not an employee of Johnson Concrete, and therefore, the Workers’ Compensation Act did not limit his ability to sue for negligence. Johnson Concrete countered that the Act's exclusivity provision applied because they considered Jefferson a special employee under their supervision. The trial court initially denied both parties' motions for partial summary judgment regarding the jurisdiction issue but later granted Johnson Concrete's motion, leading Jefferson to appeal.
In its ruling, the Court of Appeals, led by Judge Allegra Collins, determined that the trial court had erred in granting Johnson Concrete partial summary judgment. The court stated, "Defendant essentially wants the benefit of the exclusivity provision of the Workers’ Compensation Act without the burdens associated with being Plaintiff’s employer—Defendant cannot have it both ways." This decision highlighted that there was no evidence of an implied contract of hire between Jefferson and Johnson Concrete, which meant that the exclusivity provision of the Act did not apply.
The court pointed out that the contract between Johnson Concrete and Labor Finders explicitly stated that all temporary employees, including Jefferson, were considered employees of Labor Finders. The court emphasized that Jefferson was hired, assigned, and paid by Labor Finders, and there was no contractual provision indicating that he was an employee of Johnson Concrete. The ruling also noted that the corporate representative of Johnson Concrete testified that Jefferson was not their employee and that the company did not provide him with wages or benefits.
This ruling has important implications for workers in similar situations. It clarifies that companies cannot claim the protections of the Workers’ Compensation Act while denying the responsibilities that come with being an employer. The decision reinforces the idea that employees hired through staffing agencies may still have the right to pursue claims against the companies where they work if those companies do not meet the criteria for employer status under the law.
Going forward, this ruling could influence how companies engage with staffing agencies and how they manage the responsibilities of training and supervising temporary employees. It may also encourage more workers to understand their rights and pursue claims when injured on the job, particularly in cases where the employer-employee relationship is unclear.
The case could potentially be appealed to the North Carolina Supreme Court, but details were not available in the court filing regarding any related cases or future proceedings. As the legal landscape surrounding workers' compensation and employee status continues to evolve, this case may serve as a significant reference point for future litigation involving similar issues.