Massachusetts Injury Lawyers Blog
Determining who qualifies as an “employer” under Massachusetts workers’ compensation law can be pivotal in personal injury litigation. When workplace injuries occur, the exclusive remedy provision under the Workers’ Compensation Act typically bars employees from bringing tort claims against their employers. In a recent decision, a federal appellate court found that an airline could not be sued for negligence by a flight attendant injured on duty, as it was deemed her employer for workers’ compensation purposes. If you sustained a workplace injury and are considering your legal options, it is important to consult a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney.
Factual Background and Procedural History
It is reported that the plaintiff, a flight attendant, suffered serious back injuries while working on a commercial flight operated by a subsidiary of the defendant airline. The incident occurred during a sudden stop on the runway as the aircraft was taxiing at Boston’s Logan Airport. Although the plaintiff had applied for and was hired by the subsidiary company, she later sued the parent airline for negligence, alleging that it was a separate entity and thus subject to third-party liability under Massachusetts law.
It is further reported that the plaintiff began receiving workers’ compensation benefits shortly after the accident and eventually settled her claim through a lump sum payment. The compensation was paid by an insurance carrier that covered both the parent airline and its subsidiary. Despite the settlement, the plaintiff pursued a negligence action against the parent airline in Massachusetts state court, asserting that the airline was not her direct employer and, therefore, not protected by the exclusivity provision of the Workers’ Compensation Act.
It is alleged that the airline removed the case to federal court, where it moved for summary judgment on the ground that the workers’ compensation bar applied. The district court granted the motion, finding that the airline had sufficient direction and control over the plaintiff’s employment to be deemed her employer. The plaintiff then appealed, seeking to proceed with her negligence claim.
Employment Relationships and Civil Immunity
The court examined whether the parent airline qualified as the plaintiff’s employer under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 152, Sections 23 and 24. These provisions establish that unless an employee gives written notice preserving common law rights, the receipt of workers’ compensation benefits bars tort claims against the employer. The court applied the two-part test used in Massachusetts: whether a direct employment relationship existed and whether the employer was insured for workers’ compensation.
In evaluating the employment relationship, the court relied on the “direction and control” standard from Massachusetts case law. It concluded that the airline exerted substantial operational control over the subsidiary and over the plaintiff’s duties. Evidence showed that the airline dictated employment policies, training, and flight assignments. FAA regulations require that the parent airline retain operational control over all subsidiary flights, including staffing and command authority on board.
The court emphasized that the flight was operated under the airline’s FAA certificate, the aircraft was piloted by a captain employed by the airline, and all critical decisions regarding personnel and flight procedures were made by the airline. Despite the plaintiff receiving her pay through the subsidiary and holding a formal employment contract with it, the court found that these facts did not override the actual working relationship, which reflected the airline’s control over the plaintiff’s duties and conduct.
Accordingly, the court affirmed the lower court’s ruling that the parent airline was the plaintiff’s employer and immune from tort liability under the Workers’ Compensation Act.
Speak to a Skilled Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Attorney
Although workers’ compensation provides important benefits, it also limits the ability to pursue lawsuits against employers. If you have questions about who qualifies as your employer or whether third-party liability may apply, you should talk to a lawyer. Attorney James K. Meehan of the Law Office of James K. Meehan is a skilled Massachusetts workers’ compensation lawyer who has extensive experience handling complex workers’ compensation matters and he can guide you through your options. To schedule a consultation, call 508-822-6600 or contact us online today.