Futurist articles predict that outsourcing and technology will be employers' two most dependable essentials. Increasing number of employers is employing the services of "work-at-home employees," an outsourcing alternative among many. Technology, of course, is what links these employees with their companies. As a result, labor law faces some changes in the near future. This article presents an interesting example of a United States (US) workers compensation case involving an employee who regularly worked from home.
US workers compensation law is a set of rules, within labor laws, that places upon the employer losses from injuries suffered by employees at the work place or during the course of employment. Given the protecting and human design of worker compensation law, US courts solve these cases with a favorable approach towards employees.
Plaintiff was a managerial employee who was injured in an automobile accident while traveling back home after a meeting with his company's supervisor. Plaintiff worked both from the company's premises and from home. He regularly worked at home and his home-based work was an integral part of his employment. Plaintiff was invited to meet his supervisor to discuss business matters and some possible promotion. He felt compelled to attend this meeting even though it was after regular office hours. Plaintiff admitted drinking four beers and some tequila during the meeting with his supervisor. The supervisor left the meeting place and plaintiff left some time after to finish some company's work at home; plaintiff argued this work was required for the following day office meeting. In his way home, plaintiff had a car incident and while outside the car, a car struck plaintiff and caused some severe injuries. Plaintiff had his hazard lights on and had opened his car's hood. Plaintiff filed a workers compensation claim arguing that his accident occurred while in the course of his employment.
An Administrative Labor Judge ("ALJ") awarded plaintiff workers compensation benefits. The Labor and Industrials Commission (Missouri) reversed the award. Plaintiff appealed. Normally, accidents that occur while the employee is going to or returning from work are not considered to occur while in the course of employment. The "dual purpose doctrine" is an exception to this rule; "If the work of the employee creates the necessity for travel, he is in the course of his employment, though he is serving at the same time some purpose of his own." The "mutual benefit doctrine" is another exception to the general rule. This doctrine establishes that injures suffered by an employee while performing an activity for the mutual benefit of the employer and the employee is compensable when some advantage results for the employer from the employee's activity.
The court of appeals held that plaintiff was injured in his way from work while transporting documents to complete his work at home, and this work was required for his following business day at the office. Besides, the court reasoned, plaintiff's work at home was indispensable and essential part of his job because he did not have the time to conclude his work during regular business hours. Thus, the court held, "compensation for injuries while traveling home may be proper under the dual purpose doctrine when it can genuinely and not fictionally be said that the home has become part of the employment premises. In those circumstances, an employee fulfills a dual purpose by traveling home: the personal purpose of making a normal trip home, and the business purpose of reaching a second employment situs. An employee demonstrates this by showing a clear business use of the home at the end of the specific journey during which the accident occurred." The court clarified that merely carrying work documents while going to or from work does not itself connect the trip into part of the employment. Instead, the employee must show that his action reports benefits for the employer and it is not just for the employee's convenience. Judgment was reversed and the employee was entitled to workers compensation benefits. Rogers v. Pacesetter Corp., 972 S.W.2d 540.
Knowledge of workers compensation cases and doctrines for work-at-home employees or employees that perform services both at the office and home is essential for e-businesses nowadays. The type of labor contract used, working hours, and type of work performed are important elements to determine if a company is liable for employee's injuries at home or while going to perform home work. Those employees that work 100% from home are usually hired as independent contractors and they do not receive workers compensation benefits. The issue arises when employees work both from home and at the company's premises.
