Ybarra v. John Bean Technologies Corp.
2012 WL 507025, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18631, 853 F.Supp.2d 997 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A temporary employee provided by a staffing agency to a client company is considered a 'special employee' of that client, and therefore barred from suing the client in tort for a workplace injury, if the client company has the right to control the manner and means of the employee's work.
Facts:
- Pedro Ybarra was a temporary worker placed at John Bean Technologies Corporation (JBT) by a staffing agency, Placement Pros.
- The contract between JBT and Placement Pros stipulated that JBT would supervise the temporary workers, furnish a safe workplace, and be responsible for the safety of its work.
- Placement Pros was responsible for paying Ybarra and obtaining workers’ compensation insurance, which named JBT as an additional insured.
- At JBT, Ybarra worked as a general laborer, performing tasks like deburring machine parts and helping assemble cookers, which were part of JBT’s regular business.
- Various JBT employees, including a lead man and a 'work buddy,' assigned Ybarra his tasks, directed his activities, and had the authority to inspect and require correction of his work.
- JBT provided Ybarra with training, safety meetings, and most of the tools and equipment needed for his job.
- Ybarra himself testified that JBT controlled and directed his activities while he worked at its facility.
- Ybarra sustained an injury while working on JBT's premises.
Procedural Posture:
- Pedro Ybarra and his wife Mary Ybarra filed a lawsuit against John Bean Technologies Corporation (JBT) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, a federal trial court.
- The complaint alleged claims for negligence on behalf of Pedro Ybarra and for loss of consortium on behalf of Mary Ybarra.
- After the discovery phase of litigation, Defendant JBT filed a motion for summary judgment.
- JBT argued that the Ybarras' claims were barred by the exclusive remedy provisions of California's workers' compensation law.
- The case is now before the United States Magistrate Judge to rule on JBT's motion for summary judgment.
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 a temporary worker, furnished by a staffing agency to a client company, considered a 'special employee' of that client company, thereby making workers' compensation the exclusive remedy for an on-the-job injury and barring a negligence lawsuit against the client company?
Opinions:
Majority - Snyder, Sandra M.
Yes. A temporary worker is considered a special employee of the client company when the client company has the right to control the manner and means of accomplishing the work, making workers’ compensation the exclusive remedy for an on-the-job injury. The court's reasoning focused on the 'Borello' test, finding that the primary factor—the right to control—weighed heavily in favor of an employment relationship. The agreement between JBT and Placement Pros explicitly granted JBT supervisory control, and Ybarra's own testimony confirmed that JBT directed his work. The court held that the actual degree of supervision is less important than the right to exercise it. The court also found that secondary factors supported this conclusion: Ybarra's work was unskilled and part of JBT's regular business, JBT supplied the workplace and tools, and Ybarra was paid hourly. The court rejected Ybarra's claim that he was an independent contractor, as he met none of the criteria, such as having his own business or an opportunity for profit or loss. Therefore, as JBT's special employee, Ybarra's negligence claim is barred by the workers' compensation exclusivity rule.
Analysis:
This decision strongly affirms the 'special employment' or 'borrowed servant' doctrine in the context of the modern gig and temporary labor economy. It clarifies for companies using staffing agencies that the critical factor in limiting their tort liability is maintaining the right to control the work of temporary staff. By establishing this clear boundary, the ruling provides businesses with a legal shield, limiting their exposure for workplace injuries to the more predictable costs of the workers' compensation system rather than uncertain and potentially large tort damages. This precedent makes the use of temporary labor a more legally secure and financially predictable option for companies that need flexible staffing.
