Black v. Employee Solutions, Inc.
725 N.E.2d 138, 2000 WL 280407, 2000 Ind. App. LEXIS 322 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the common law definition applicable to the Indiana Wage Payment Statute, an employee leasing company is not considered an employer liable for unpaid wages unless there is evidence of mutual intent to form an employment relationship and the company exercises or has the right to exercise control over the employees' work.
Facts:
- Central States Xpress, Inc. (CSX), a trucking company, employed the Employees under a collective bargaining agreement.
- Lacking worker's compensation coverage, CSX entered a 'Service Agreement' with Employee Solutions, Inc. (ESI), an employee leasing company, on March 17, 1996.
- Under the agreement, ESI would provide worker's compensation, process payroll based on gross earnings data from CSX, and lease the Employees back to CSX.
- ESI issued payroll checks bearing both company names and sent them to CSX for distribution; CSX was then required to reimburse ESI for the payroll plus a service fee.
- The Employees were not parties to the Service Agreement and did not enter into any separate employment agreements with ESI.
- CSX failed to pay ESI's invoices, which led ESI to terminate the Service Agreement on May 3, 1996.
- On the same day ESI terminated the contract, CSX permanently ceased its operations and later filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, leaving the Employees with unpaid wages.
Procedural Posture:
- The Employees filed a complaint against ESI in an Indiana trial court, seeking unpaid wages under the Indiana Wage Payment Statute.
- ESI filed a motion to dismiss, which was converted into a motion for summary judgment because ESI attached a copy of the collective bargaining agreement.
- The Employees also filed a cross-motion for partial summary judgment, asking the court to find that ESI was liable as their employer.
- The trial court granted ESI's motion for summary judgment and denied the Employees' motion, dismissing the complaint on the grounds that federal law preempted the state wage claims and the CBA required arbitration.
- The Employees (appellants) appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the Indiana Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is an employee leasing company that processes payroll and provides worker's compensation coverage, but exercises no control over the employees' work and has no direct agreement with them, considered an 'employer' liable for unpaid wages under the Indiana Wage Payment Statute?
Opinions:
Majority - Najam, J.
No. An employee leasing company is not considered an 'employer' under the Indiana Wage Payment Statute where it functions merely as a payroll agent and lacks both a mutual intent to create an employment relationship and the right of control over the employees. The court determined that the term 'employer' in the statute must be interpreted according to its common law definition, which requires a totality-of-the-circumstances analysis. Here, there was no 'meeting of the minds' between ESI and the Employees to form an employment relationship; they were not parties to any agreement, and ESI never assumed the collective bargaining agreement. Furthermore, ESI exercised no control over the Employees—it did not schedule, direct, or supervise their work. Its role was limited to processing payroll data submitted by CSX, making it a 'payroll agent and conduit for money' rather than an employer.
Concurring - Staton, J.
No. While an employee can have two employers, the connection between the Employees and ESI was insufficient to establish an employer-employee relationship under these specific circumstances. The concurring opinion emphasizes that in many employee leasing arrangements, a dual-employer relationship exists. However, in this case, the only link between the Employees and ESI was the appearance of ESI's name on their paychecks for a few weeks. This minimal connection, without any other indicia of an employment relationship, is not enough to hold ESI legally liable for the unpaid wages, though it may have had a moral responsibility.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the legal standard for determining 'employer' status for employee leasing organizations and Professional Employer Organizations (PEOs) under Indiana wage law. By rejecting a formalistic approach based on contract language, the court established that a substantive analysis of mutual intent and, most importantly, the right of control is required. This precedent protects companies that provide purely administrative or payroll services from being held liable for the wage debts of their clients. It shifts the risk of a client company's insolvency onto the employees rather than the leasing agency, forcing future plaintiffs in similar situations to prove the leasing company exercised actual control over their work conditions.
