Court rules staffing contract can’t block temp worker’s co-employment status

King’s central argument relied on the staffing agreement between Pro-Man and Dayco, which stated plainly that no employer-employee relationship existed between Dayco and any contract employee. On paper, King worked for Pro-Man. In practice, the arrangement looked very different. 

The undisputed record showed that Dayco controlled the details of King’s work. A full-time Dayco employee, Lamonda Topps, served as his supervisor. He also reported to Dayco manager Derek Spates. Each day, either Topps or King’s lead, Dana Hubbard, assigned him specific trailers to inspect and remove containers from using the forklift. King was required to report to work Monday through Friday, 6 a.m. to 2:30 p.m., and clock in and out on a daily basis. He was expected to work a minimum of 40 hours a week. Dayco provided all necessary tools and equipment. King had no authority to hire any of his own workers or helpers. When he was absent, Hubbard was required to assume his duties. During his first week, Topps personally instructed Hubbard to train King and observed the training. 

King did not respond to any of these facts when Dayco submitted them during the summary judgment proceedings. Under Tennessee procedural rules, that silence meant the facts could be deemed admitted. King also conceded in his own appellate brief that four of the seven statutory factors used to determine employee status appeared satisfied. 

The court applied what Tennessee calls the loaned servant doctrine – a legal principle under which a worker can be treated as an employee of both the staffing agency and the client company, provided three conditions are met: there is an implied agreement to work for the client, the work being done is essentially the client’s work, and the client controls the details of how the work gets done. All three were satisfied here. 

Tennessee law has long held that when a temp worker agrees to work for a staffing agency, that worker implicitly consents to work for whichever client the agency assigns them to. That consent, the court explained, creates an implied employment relationship with the client – regardless of what the staffing contract says. The court pointed to decades of consistent rulings reaching the same conclusion.