Steven Matthew Lassiter was a deputy with the Robeson County Sheriff’s Office in North Carolina. The Sheriff’s Office had a policy allowing deputies to seek approval for off-duty employment. In 2017, Truesdell Corporation was awarded a state contract for bridge repair work on I-95. The contract required Truesdell to furnish uniformed law enforcement officers for traffic control. Truesdell contacted the Sheriff’s Office to request officers.
Captain James Obershea and Deputy Jonathan Edwards of the Sheriff’s Office coordinated the off-duty assignments. They selected which deputies would work, assigned their specific posts based on Truesdell’s traffic control plan, set their hours, and collected their W-9 forms for Truesdell to process payment. Truesdell paid the deputies directly. The Sheriff’s Office retained the authority to remove a deputy from the site; Truesdell would have to request such action through Obershea or Edwards.
On March 28, 2019, Obershea determined the traffic plan required a seventh officer. After Truesdell and the state DOT approved the addition, Obershea contacted Lassiter to fill the shift. That night, while directing traffic, Lassiter was struck by a vehicle and seriously injured.
Lassiter filed a workers’ compensation claim against both the Sheriff’s Office and Truesdell. The Industrial Commission found he was an employee of only the Sheriff’s Office. The Court of Appeals reversed in part, holding Truesdell was a joint employer. The North Carolina Supreme Court granted discretionary review.
The Supreme Court clarified the distinct tests for the “lent employee” doctrine and the “joint employment” doctrine. For joint employment, an employee must be under contract with two employers, under the simultaneous control of both, performing services for both that are the same or closely related. By contrast, the “lent employee” doctrine concerns whether a worker, formally employed by one entity, becomes the special employee of another that assumes direct, on-site control over the worker’s tasks, potentially shifting liability for negligence.
The Court assumed without deciding that an implied contract for hire existed between Lassiter and Truesdell based on the payment and work arrangement. It also found the nature of the work — public safety traffic control — was closely related to the work of both employers.
The decisive issue was control. The Court examined factors including who supplied tools, supervised the work, power to terminate the worker, assigned duties, and controlled the manner and method of the work. The Court found that the Sheriff’s Office, through Obershea and Edwards, controlled all critical details: they selected and assigned the deputies, set their hours, and had sole authority to discharge them from the site. Deputies used their own judgment, training, and primarily county-owned equipment to direct traffic. They could take breaks or leave for law enforcement emergencies without consulting Truesdell.
While Truesdell’s contract required a traffic control plan and it designated general locations for officers, the Court held this was insufficient to establish the “right to control the details” necessary for an employment relationship. Telling a worker what to do and where to be, without controlling how they do it, does not constitute the requisite control. The Court distinguished prior case law where a joint employer was found because its representative was on site giving specific, active instructions.
The Court concluded Lassiter was under the control of the Sheriff’s Office alone at the time of his injury. Therefore, Truesdell was not a joint employer and could not be held liable for workers’ compensation.
Lassiter v. Robeson County Sheriff’s Department, 2025 N.C. LEXIS 1090* (Dec. 12, 2025).