MD’s Highest Court Says Lower Court Erred in Reversing a Jury’s Finding as to Co-Employer Status
The Court of Appeals of Maryland, in a divided decision, held the state’s Court of Special Appeals erred in concluding, as a matter of law, that Tyson Farms was a co-employer of a farm worker at the time that he sustained work-related injuries since the evidence adduced at trial, while largely undisputed, was nevertheless susceptible to differing reasonable inferences, including the inference that Tyson Farms did not exercise sufficient control over the injured worker to be deemed a co-employer [Tyson Farms, Inc. v. Uninsured Employers’ Fund, 2020 Md. LEXIS 591 (Nov. 20, 2020). The Court discussed and stressed the important distinction between control over the workplace and control over the worker, noting that while the former was clearly present in the instant case, the jury found that the latter had not been proved.
Background
In 2009, Garcia was hired to work at a chicken farm owned by Terry Ung. At first, Garcia performed routine maintenance and other chores under Ung’s direction. When Ung became ill toward the end of 2009, Garcia began managing the firm. Upon Ung’s death in late 2009, Ung’s wife, who was not familiar with the farm operation, became the owner of the farm. Tyson’s representatives taught Garcia how to operate the farm according to its standards. In 2013, Mrs. Ung sold the farm to Dai K. Nguyen, an absentee owner, who also knew nothing about raising chickens. Tyson agreed to contract with Nguyen only if Garcia remained on site as the resident manager of the farm.
Farm Was Uninsured at Time of Injury
Following his injury, Garcia filed a claim for benefits against Nguyen. The Uninsured Employers’ Fund (“UEF”) was made a party to the claim when it became clear that Nguyen did not possess workers’ compensation insurance. Garcia and UEF then impleaded Tyson into the claim. Following a hearing, the Workers’ Compensation Commission declared that Garcia’s injuries arose out of and in the course of his employment, and that both Nguyen and Tyson were co-employers of Garcia at the time of his injuries. Tyson appealed the Commission’s decision to the Circuit Court for Worcester County.
Jury Trial
Following a two-day trial, both UEF and Tyson made motions for judgment. The circuit court denied both motions and let the matter proceed to the jury. The jury returned a finding that Tyson was not a co-employer at the time of Garcia’s injuries. UEF appealed.
Court of Special Appeals
In a split decision, the Court of Special Appeals reversed. Applying a five-factor test laid down earlier by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, the majority of the lower court concentrated on the issue of control, finding that Tyson’s control over Garcia’s work was more than sufficient to establish an employment relationship as a matter of law [for a more complete discussion of lower court decision, see my post last November].
Court of Appeals Decision
The Court initially stated that it was well settled that where there is evidence supporting an inference that more than one individual or company controlled or directed a worker in the performance of a given duty, the question of whether an employer-employee relationship existed was a question of fact for the jury, and not by courts as a matter of law. The Court stressed that even where the evidence is uncontradicted or undisputed, if there are conflicting inferences to be drawn from the evidence, the question of the existence of an employer-employee relationship was to be determined by the jury as a question of fact, and not by the court.
The Court continued that although the evidence in this case was “mainly uncontradicted,” the evidence was nevertheless susceptible to differing reasonable inferences, and as such, the circuit court properly denied UEF’s motion for judgment and permitted the jury to decide the issue of co-employment as a question of fact.
Control of the Workplace vs. Control of the Worker
The Court acknowledged that the decisive test in ascertaining whether an employment relationship existed was, indeed, whether an entity had the right to control the employee’s conduct and performance of work. The Court cautioned, however, as it had indicated earlier in Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co. v. Imbraguglio, 346 Md. 573, 590, 697 A.2d 885, 894-95 (1997), that control of the workplace should not be confused with control of the worker. Here there was extensive evidence as to the controls crafted by Tyson in its effort to obtain consistent quality in the chickens it purchased from the farm. Here, the court indicated, the factors concerning the ability to hire and fire and the payment of wages gave rise to the inference that Nguyen was Garcia’s sole employer.
According to the Court, the evidence in this case certainly permitted the reasonable inference that Tyson did not have the control over Garcia necessary to be considered his employer or that, as we stated in Imbraguglio, 346 Md. at 593, 697 A.2d at 895, “[a]t best, the evidence cuts both ways.” Where the evidence could cut either way, the circuit court was correct in submitting the issue of co-employment to the jury, said the Court. The Court concluded, therefore, that the Court of Special Appeals committed error in substituting its own findings for those of the jury.