Recent Ruling of Lassiter v. Robeson County Sheriff’s Department, Shines Light on Importance of Workers’ Compensation

On December 12, 2025, the North Carolina Supreme Court delivered a decision that should prompt every law enforcement agency in the country to audit their off-duty work agreements. The ruling in Lassiter v. Robeson County Sheriff’s Department made one thing abundantly clear: when contracts are vague and control is ambiguous, agencies may find themselves shouldering 100% of the workers compensation burden for injuries that happen during privately funded off-duty jobs.

This case isn’t just a legal curiosity for attorneys to debate. It’s a wake-up call for sheriffs, police chiefs, and public safety administrators who manage off-duty and extra-duty programs. The stakes are real, the costs are significant, and the fix starts with well-defined contractual terms.

The Lassiter case centers on an off-duty sheriff’s deputy named Stephen Lassiter, who sustained severe injuries while directing traffic for a highway construction project in North Carolina. The legal fight that followed stretched from 2019 to 2025 and involved the Robeson County Sheriff’s Office (RCSO), Truesdell Corporation (the construction company engaged on the project), and their respective insurers.

The North Carolina Supreme Court ultimately held that RCSO was Lassiter’s sole employer for workers’ compensation purposes. Truesdell was not a joint employer, despite the fact that Truesdell issued payments directly to the deputies working the detail and had designed the traffic control plan they followed. The Court found that Truesdell did not exercise sufficient control over the manner and method of Lassiter’s work to establish a joint employment relationship.

This ruling matters because off-duty work arrangements like this one are common across the country. Police officers and deputies regularly take traffic control duties, event security gigs, and construction site details for private employers. Many agencies still rely on informal practices—handshake agreements, captain’s lists, and direct cash payments from businesses—to manage these assignments. Lassiter exposes the risk: without explicit written agreements that clarify employment status, control, and workers’ compensation responsibility, agencies may be left holding the entire financial and legal burden when something goes wrong.

From Off Duty Management’s perspective, as a full comprehensive service solution for off-duty administration, the lesson is unmistakable. Agencies must use well-defined, written contractual terms to clarify who is responsible for workers’ compensation, insurance, and risk when officers work off-duty jobs. The days of informal arrangements are over.

Stephen Lassiter joined the Robeson County Sheriff’s Office in 2008 and worked as a deputy for over a decade. On March 28, 2019, he was working an evening shift on an Interstate 95 bridge repair project located in Cumberland and Robeson counties. The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) had contracted with Truesdell Corporation for concrete restoration work on the bridge, and the contract required Truesdell to use uniformed law enforcement officers as part of its approved traffic control plan.

That night, Lassiter was completing off-duty work at an off-duty job site, operating from an unmarked patrol car with blue lights activated to control traffic and protect both motorists and construction workers. At some point during the shift, a vehicle struck Lassiter. He received extensive medical treatment for his injuries.

Lassiter subsequently filed a workers’ compensation claim. The question that would consume the courts for years: who was his employer for workers’ compensation purposes—RCSO alone, or both RCSO and Truesdell as joint employers?

Here’s how the administrative and legal process unfolded:

• North Carolina Industrial Commission (Initial Hearing): The Commission ruled that Lassiter was employed solely by RCSO at the time of injury and denied Truesdell’s status as a joint employer.
• Full Commission: Lassiter appealed, and the Full Commission affirmed the initial decision.
• Court of Appeals: Lassiter appealed again. The Court of Appeals reversed in part, finding that Truesdell could be considered a joint employer and therefore jointly liable for workers’ compensation along with its insurer, The Phoenix Insurance Company.
• North Carolina Supreme Court (December 12, 2025): The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals on the joint employment issue, reinstating the Industrial Commission’s original finding that RCSO was Lassiter’s sole employer. Workers’ compensation responsibility fell entirely on RCSO and its insurer, Synergy Coverage Solutions.

What made this case so contentious? The arrangement between RCSO, Truesdell, and the deputies was operationally messy. The contract required Truesdell to provide law enforcement officers for traffic control, and Truesdell issued payments directly to those officers. But RCSO retained control over nearly everything else: which deputies could participate (requiring prior approval from supervisors), who was assigned to specific posts (a ranking captain made these decisions), on-site supervision, setting of hours, and the authority to reposition or remove deputies from the project.

Neither RCSO nor Truesdell had a fully fleshed-out written agreement that clearly spelled out employment status, workers’ compensation responsibility, supervision, and liability for off-duty jobs. That gap set the stage for six years of litigation.

The core legal question before the Court was whether Lassiter was jointly employed by both RCSO and Truesdell for purposes of North Carolina’s Workers’ Compensation Act.

The Supreme Court’s answer was clear: RCSO was Lassiter’s sole employer. Truesdell did not exercise sufficient control over the details of Lassiter’s work to create joint employment.

This reversed the Court of Appeals, which had concluded that Truesdell exercised joint control and should share liability. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that Truesdell’s involvement did not rise to the level of an employer/employee relationship.

The Court examined the real-world division of authority between RCSO and Truesdell:

In short, Truesdell provided the “what” and “where” at a high level—traffic control needs and general locations—but RCSO controlled the “how” at the level of police work detail. That distinction was decisive.

The Court noted that an implied employment contract existed between Lassiter and Truesdell in the sense that Lassiter knew he was performing work related to Truesdell’s highway project, and Truesdell knew officers were executing its traffic control plan. But an implied contract alone was not enough. The joint employment doctrine requires proof of simultaneous control over the manner and method of work, and that control was absent here.

Critically, the Court also noted that nothing in its decision prevents parties from using contract language to allocate and share workers’ compensation responsibility in the future. This is a crucial opening for agencies to tighten their off-duty job agreements going forward.

To understand why the Lassiter case turned out the way it did, agency leaders need to understand two related but distinct legal doctrines.

A joint employment relationship arises when a single employee simultaneously performs services for two employers under contracts with both and under the simultaneous control of both for closely related work. The joint employment doctrine requires three elements:

1. A contract for hire, express or implied, with both employers
2. The right to control the details of the work—not just the objectives—by both employers
3. Performance of work that is integral to each alleged employer’s business

The lent employee doctrine requires a different analysis. It applies when a general employer “lends” an employee to a special employer who then controls the details of the work. Here, the focus is on whether the special employer (in this case, Truesdell) assumed control of the employee’s work.

The Court clarified that these doctrines are distinct in North Carolina law. Prior cases had sometimes blurred them, but Lassiter sharpens the analysis.

The Court applied a multi-factor test to determine which party controlled Lassiter’s work:

• Who selects and assigns the worker? RCSO controlled selection and assignment.
• Who can terminate or remove the worker? RCSO retained discretion to remove deputies at any time.
• Who supervises day-to-day tasks and methods? RCSO supervisors directed Lassiter’s movements on March 28, 2019.
• Who provides tools, equipment, and safety protocols? Lassiter used his law enforcement training and an RCSO-provided vehicle. Truesdell supplied traffic control devices but not police equipment.
• Who has authority to discipline? Only RCSO could discipline deputies.

The Court determined that Truesdell’s role—designing the traffic control plan and specifying general post locations—did not amount to control over the manner and method of Lassiter’s law enforcement work. The alleged employer supervised no one; the alleged employer assigned duties only at a general level; the alleged employer supplied materials limited to traffic devices; the alleged employer controlled nothing about how Lassiter performed his or her duties as a police officer.

For agency leaders, this is the critical takeaway: in the absence of clear, written contractual language, courts will examine real-world control and day-to-day practices. The outcome may not be what you expected.

The Lassiter ruling effectively assigned full workers’ compensation responsibility to the Sheriff’s Office and its carrier for an injury that occurred in an off-duty, privately funded job. Truesdell paid the deputies directly, designed the traffic control plan, and needed uniformed law enforcement officers to execute its contract with NCDOT. Yet Truesdell walked away without workers’ compensation liability.

Many agencies across the country operate off-duty programs with similar ambiguity. Deputies and police officers pick up extra shifts for construction companies, retailers, hospitals, event venues, and more. Often, the private employer pays the officer directly (or through the agency), and everyone assumes liability will be shared or fall on the private employer’s insurance.

Lassiter shows that assumption can be catastrophically wrong.

Without explicit contract terms, agencies may carry 100% of workers compensation and related exposure for injuries happening in off-duty details that primarily benefit private employers. The plaintiff carried his claim forward for six years, and in the end, RCSO bore the burden.

In light of the Lassiter decision, agencies should treat every off-duty engagement as a potential workers’ compensation event and structure contracts accordingly. Here’s a practical checklist for agency administrators, risk managers, and city or county attorneys.

Clearly define whether officers remain employees solely of the agency while off-duty, or whether any joint or special employment relationship is intended. Don’t leave this to implication. An implied employment contract is not enough to protect anyone—spell it out.

Specify which party’s workers’ compensation coverage applies and under what circumstances. Consider indemnification or cost-sharing provisions where state law permits. If you want the private employer to share responsibility, the contract must say so explicitly.

Describe who controls assignments, posts, and day-to-day supervision. Clarify that law enforcement functions remain under agency control, even when officers are working for a private client. If the alleged employer retained discretion over any aspect of the work, document it.

Define what tasks officers may perform:

• Traffic control duties
• Site security
• Crowd management

Also specify which tasks are prohibited, such as manual labor for the contractor.

Identify which party supplies safety equipment, traffic control devices, radios, and law enforcement vehicles. Specify who is responsible for maintaining safe conditions at the job site.

Require evidence of liability insurance from the private employer. Where permitted, include contractual indemnity provisions in favor of the agency and governing entity (city, county, etc.).

Establish how injuries, near-misses, and claims will be documented, reported, and handled between the agency, the vendor, and their insurers. Don’t wait until someone is hurt to figure out who calls whom.

Agencies should adopt standardized contract templates for all off-duty engagements. Don’t allow individual officers or unit commanders to negotiate informal side arrangements that bypass agency controls.

Review your existing off-duty agreements in light of Lassiter. If necessary, re-open discussions with frequent off-duty employers—road construction firms, utilities, hospitals, event venues—to update and modernize terms. Involve city or county attorneys, risk management, and HR when redrafting policies so that workers’ compensation, liability, and labor rules are aligned.

The lessons of Lassiter are clear. But how do agencies operationalize them at scale, especially when managing hundreds or thousands of off-duty assignments each year?

This is where a fully managed off-duty and extra-duty program—like what Off Duty Management provides—can make the difference between risk and resilience.

A platform like OfficerTRAK® centralizes all off-duty scheduling, assignments, and approvals under agency oversight. This isn’t just about convenience. It reinforces clear control by the agency, which is exactly what courts look for when analyzing employment relationships.

When every assignment flows through a single system with documented approvals, supervisors, and audit trails, there’s no ambiguity about who controlled the work.

Off Duty Management standardizes contract language and terms for every off-duty job with private employers. Workers’ compensation responsibilities, insurance requirements, and risk allocations are addressed consistently—not reinvented for each new gig.

This eliminates the patchwork of informal arrangements that left RCSO exposed in Lassiter.

By handling vendor billing and officer payroll as a third-party administrator, Off Duty Management reduces the ad hoc direct-pay arrangements that muddy employment relationships. When an independent contractor or company engaged in construction wants uniformed law enforcement officers for traffic control, payments flow through a structured system—not cash in an envelope.

In any workers’ compensation or liability dispute, documentation is everything. OfficerTRAK® maintains digital records of assignments, hours worked, locations, and supervising officers. If a case like Lassiter ever arises, agencies have clear evidence of who controlled what, when, and how.

Where permitted, Off Duty Management can provide appropriate insurance coverage for off-duty assignments, supplementing agency coverage and closing gaps identified in cases like Lassiter.

Every feature of a managed off-duty program ties back to the control analysis courts apply:

• A clear digital audit trail demonstrates that the agency retains law enforcement supervision even when officers work for private entities.
• Standardized workflows prevent unauthorized or non-compliant off-duty jobs that could inadvertently shift risk to the agency.
• Documented approvals and assignments reinforce that the alleged employer exercised no real control over the officer’s work.

Unlike generic scheduling tools or informal spreadsheets, a specialized off-duty management solution is designed around law enforcement risk—including workers’ compensation, liability insurance, and compliance with local policies.

Agencies that proactively modernize their off-duty programs in response to Lassiter can reduce litigation risk, protect officers, and give private employers clarity—all while maintaining operational control.

The alternative is waiting for your own Lassiter moment: a serious injury, a disputed claim, and years of litigation that could have been avoided with better contracts and systems.

Key Takeaways

• The North Carolina Supreme Court ruled that RCSO was Lassiter’s sole employer for workers’ compensation, leaving Truesdell—the private contractor—without joint liability.
• The joint employment doctrine requires proof of control over the manner and method of work, not just payment or general task assignment.
• Agencies relying on informal off-duty arrangements face significant financial and legal risk when injuries occur.
• Well-defined contracts must address employment status, workers’ compensation allocation, control and supervision, scope of duties, safety, indemnity, and incident reporting.
• A managed off-duty program with centralized scheduling, standardized contracts, and digital documentation helps agencies maintain control and reduce risk.

Don’t wait for your own Lassiter moment. If your agency administers off-duty or extra-duty work—whether for traffic control, event security, or anything else—now is the time to review your contracts, modernize your systems, and close the gaps. Contact Off Duty Management to learn how a fully managed solution can protect your agency, your officers, and your budget at no cost to your agency or municipality.