North Carolina: Situs of Employment Contract Not Changed by Modification in Another State

In a divided decision, the Supreme Court of North Carolina, quoting Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 143.03[4], held that once an employment contract has been made—in this case, in South Carolina—the contract’s situs is not changed merely because the contract is modified in North Carolina by a change in salary or benefits. Accordingly, where a Georgia resident accepted employment as a delivery truck driver by signing an offer letter in South Carolina, and began making deliveries in South Carolina and Georgia, the situs of the employment contract was South Carolina. When the employer subsequently closed its Columbia, SC office and administratively transferred the employee to its Charlotte, NC office—at somewhat higher pay, but with the same job title—the contract’s situs did not change. A decision by the North Carolina Court of Appeals that the Industrial Commission had jurisdiction of the employee’s work-related injury claim—which occurred in Georgia—was, therefore, erroneous, held the majority of the Court. The employee’s act of consenting to being “transferred” did not mean the employment contract had been “made in this State” for purposes of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97–36.

Thomas A. Robinson, J.D., the Feature National Columnist for the LexisNexis Workers’ Compensation eNewsletter, is the co-author of Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law (LexisNexis).

LexisNexis Online Subscribers: Citations below link to Lexis Advance. Bracketed citations link to lexis.com.

See Burley v. U.S. Foods, Inc., 2015 N.C. LEXIS 929 (Sept. 25, 2015) [2015 N.C. LEXIS 929 (Sept. 25, 2015)]

See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 143.03 [143.03]

Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law.

For more information about LexisNexis products and solutions connect with us through our corporate site