joint employment doctrine in North Carolina

2020“Plaintiff may rely upon two doctrines to prove [he] is an employee of two different employers at the same time: the joint employment doctrine and the lent employee doctrine.” Whicker, 246 N.C. App. at 797 , 784 S.E.2d at 569 .

2020“Plaintiff may rely upon two doctrines to prove [he] is an employee of two different employers at the same time: the joint employment doctrine and the lent employee doctrine.” Whicker, 246 N.C. App. at 797 , 784 S.E.2d at 569 .

2025Lent Employee Doctrine A “[p]laintiff may rely upon two doctrines to prove he is an employee of two different employers at the same time: the joint employment doctrine and the lent employee doctrine.” McGuine, 270 N.C. App. at 700 (extraneity omitted); see also Anderson v. Texas Gulf, Inc., 83 N.C. App. 634, 635 (1986).

2023Under the joint employment doctrine, Plaintiff must prove he was, at the time of his injury, “a single employee, under contract with two employers, and under the simultaneous control of both, simultaneously perform[ing] services for both employers, and [] the service for each employer is the same as, or is closely related to, that for the other.” McGuine v. Nat’l Copier Logistics, LLC, 270 N.C. App. 694 , 700-01, 841 S.E.2d 333 , 338 (2020) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). 1.

2025Lent Employee Doctrine A “[p]laintiff may rely upon two doctrines to prove he is an employee of two different employers at the same time: the joint employment doctrine and the lent employee doctrine.” McGuine, 270 N.C. App. at 700 (extraneity omitted); see also Anderson v. Texas Gulf, Inc., 83 N.C. App. 634, 635 (1986).

2025The joint employment doctrine requires that “a single employee, under contract with two employers, and under the simultaneous control of both, simultaneously performs services for both employers, and . . . the service for each employer is the same as, or is closely related to, that for the other.” Texas Gulf, 83 N.C. App. at 636 (extraneity omitted) (emphasis omitted) (quoting 1C, Larson, The Law of Workmen’s Compensation § 48.40, p. 8-511); see also Larson’s § 68.01.

2025Meanwhile, the lent employee doctrine requires that “the work being done is essentially that of the special employer.” Id. at 636 (emphasis added) (quoting Collins, 21 N.C. App. at 459 ).

2025To satisfy the basic elements of the lent employee doctrine, it must be established that: “(a) the employee has made a contract of hire, express or implied, with the [special] employer; (b) the work being done is essentially that of the [special] employer; and (c) the [special] employer has the right to control the details of the work.” Id.; see also Collins v. James Paul Edwards, Inc., 21 N.C. App. 455, 459 , cert. denied, 285 N.C. 589 (1974). -7- The joint employment doctrine arises in a different context.

2025To satisfy the basic elements of the lent employee doctrine, it must be established that: “(a) the employee has made a contract of hire, express or implied, with the [special] employer; (b) the work being done is essentially that of the [special] employer; and (c) the [special] employer has the right to control the details of the work.” Id.; see also Collins v. James Paul Edwards, Inc., 21 N.C. App. 455, 459 , cert. denied, 285 N.C. 589 (1974). -7- The joint employment doctrine arises in a different context.