Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Washington: Worker May Not Be Considered Borrowed Employee in Spite of Contract Clause Consenting to Such Designation

September 27, 2019 (1 min read)

Where a worker entered into a contract with a labor broker that specified that the worker would be subject to the control of the firm to which he was assigned, that the firm to which he was assigned would be considered his “special employer,” that he specifically consented to such treatment, and that his sole remedy for any injury would be pursuant to the workers’ compensation laws of the state of Washington, it was still possible for the worker to raise an issue of fact as to whether he had waived his right to sue the special employer for negligence, held a Washington state appellate court. The court indicated, inter alia, that the special employer was not a party to the contract. Quoting a portion of an earlier decision that, in turn, had quoted Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the court said there was a question of fact as to whether the worker believed he was the employee of the hiring firm. Summary judgment was, therefore, not appropriate.

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

LexisNexis Online Subscribers: Citations below link to Lexis Advance.

See Saling v. Gaither & Sons Constr., Co., 2019 Wash. App. LEXIS 2393 (Sept. 16, 2019)

See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 64.01.

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

For a more detailed discussion of the case, see