Categories:
May 19, 2021

Staffing Company’s Should Not Conflate Employment Contract and Specific Assignment

Employment Contract Formed In Illinois In Spite of Contingencies Required for First Assignment in Indiana

In an unpublished decision, an Illinois appellate court affirmed a decision by the state’s Workers’ Compensation Commission that the last act necessary to give validity to the employee’s contract of employment occurred in Illinois—the claimant suffered injury in Indiana where she worked as a temporary operating room nurse—in spite of the fact that various conditions had to be fulfilled in Illinois before the claimant could assume her duties at the Indiana hospital [Aureus Med. Grp. v. Illinois Workers’ Comp. Comm’n, 2021 IL App (3d) 200201WC-U (Apr. 6, 2021). The appellate court agreed that the staffing company employer had conflated the employee’s employment contract with the actual assignment in Indiana. While certain conditions were required for the claimant to go to work at the hospital, she was an employee of the staffing company at the time she electronically signed her contract at an Illinois public library.

Background

The employer, a healthcare staffing company, hired claimant to work a temporary assignment as an operating room nurse at Memorial Hospital in South Bend, Indiana. Claimant sustained injuries to her right shoulder and right knee when she fell while working at the hospital. Claimant subsequently filed a workers’ compensation claim with the Commission. At the arbitration hearing, the employer did not dispute that claimant’s injuries arose out of and in the course of her employment. However, it did contest whether Illinois had jurisdiction over the claim.

Claimant testified that for a large part of her career, she had worked as a “traveling” operating room nurse, working temporary assignments at hospitals throughout the country. In January 2016, claimant applied for employment with the staffing company. A recruiter called her and inquired if she would be interested in working at a hospital in South Bend, Indiana. Claimant responded in the affirmative, so the recruiter scheduled claimant to take an online competency exam. Because claimant did not have Internet access at home, she took and passed the competency exam at a public library in Lockport, Illinois.

Another representative of the staffing company notified claimant that she would have to satisfy certain “prerequisites” for the assignment, such as obtaining an Indiana nursing license and undergoing a drug test, a tuberculosis test, a physical, and a criminal background check. Later, from her home in Illinois, claimant participated in a phone interview with a representative from Memorial Hospital. Later that same day, claimant received a call from the staffing company’s representative informing her that Memorial Hospital had an assignment for her. Claimant told the representative, “that would be great.”

Claimant subsequently underwent a drug screen and a physical examination at an immediate care center in Illinois. Claimant subsequently went to the Lockport library to download the Indiana nursing license application. Later the same day, claimant mailed the completed application to the Indiana Board of Nursing from the post office in Lockport. Subsequently, the staffing company’s representative called claimant to tell her that she was sending an email with a contract. Claimant received the contract, which was admitted into evidence, at the Lockport library. Claimant subsequently underwent a tuberculosis test in Illinois. Thereafter, she presented for a “fingerprint background check” in Hammond, Indiana. Based on these facts (and others), the Illinois Commission found that it had jurisdiction to hear claimant’s injury claim.

Appellate Court’s Decision

Citing Illinois appellate court precedent, the appellate court initially noted that pursuant to the Illinois Act, a claimant may pursue a workers’ compensation claim in Illinois if:

  1. The accident occurred in Illinois;
  2. The claimant’s employment was principally located in Illinois; or
  3. The contract for hire was made in Illinois.

Citing additional case law, the court said a contract for hire is made where the last act necessary to give validity to the contract occurs. At issue in this case, indicated the court, was where the last act necessary to give validity to claimant’s contract for hire occurred. In affirming and adopting the decision of the arbitrator, the Commission found that the last act necessary to give validity to the contract for hire occurred in Illinois on January 28, 2016, when claimant signed the employment contract by typing in her name and transmitting it to the staffing company. The appellate court said it could not say that the Commission’s conclusion was against the manifest weight of the evidence.

Staffing Company’s Contentions

The staffing company argued that after claimant signed the contract, there remained “multiple conditions precedent” to give validity to the contract for hire. The company contended that the last of the acts necessary to give validity to the contract for hire was “the condition precedent contained in [the] contract that the Indiana Board of Nursing provide [claimant] with her Indiana nursing license.” The court stressed, however, that the Commission found that obtaining an Indiana nursing license was not a condition precedent for respondent to hire claimant, but rather was a condition subsequent to qualify for the assignment at Memorial Hospital. In other words, although memorialized in one document, the Commission viewed the staffing company’s hiring of claimant and her placement in the assignment at Memorial Hospital as two separate and distinct events.

Hiring and Staffing Were Two Separate Events

The court agreed that the staffing company had improperly conflated the two events. The court placed particular reliance on the language of the employment contract itself, which repeatedly referred to claimant as an “employee” and sets forth the parameters of the parties’ “employment relationship.” The court observed that the contract further provided that upon completion of an assignment, claimant would contact the staffing company immediately to request re-assignment, and that her failure to do so would be considered a “voluntary quit.” These provisions, stressed the court, supported the Commission’s finding that by signing the contract, claimant established an employment relationship with the staffing company that transcended her assignment at Memorial Hospital.

Last Act for Contract Was in Illinois

The court concluded that there was ample support in the record for the Commission’s finding that the last act to give validity for the contract for hire occurred in Illinois on January 28, 2016. On that date, claimant signed the contract by typing in her name and electronically transmitting it to the staffing company. It was undisputed that these events occurred in Illinois. At that point, the staffing company became aware that claimant had accepted the offer of employment outlined in the contract.