In July 2015, a young woman was on her way to a training class for her internship when she was injured in a motor vehicle accident. The question of whether she was an employee or not came into dispute. Recently, the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board of California found that the woman, who was seeking workers’ compensation benefits for her injuries, was an employee at the time of the accident. This ruling has major implications for businesses that offer internships, as they may have thought they were not responsible for providing workers’ compensation coverage to interns.
Background of the case
The contract offered the woman an internship position as a business analyst in the defendant’s training program. She started attending the training classes at the defendant’s office in Fremont, California.
The Motor Vehicle Accident and Injury
In July 2015, while the woman was being driven by her friend to a training class, they were involved in a motor vehicle accident. As a result, the woman sustained injuries.
Debate Over Applicant’s Employment Status
The defendant argued that the woman was not an employee and therefore not entitled to workers’ compensation benefits because she was an intern. They claimed that the internship was strictly a training program and did not involve an employer-employee relationship.
Business Analyst Agreement Duties and Responsibilities
The business analyst agreement required the woman to perform duties and responsibilities that went beyond simple training or education. The defendant argued that these duties were part of the training program and did not make her an employee.
Application of Borello v. Department of Industrial Relations Ruling
The panel that reviewed the case cited the ruling in Borello v. Department of Industrial Relations (1989), which outlines the criteria for determining whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor. Under this ruling, an employer must establish that the worker is free from the control and direction of the employer and that the worker is engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business.
Evidence supporting applicant’s status as an employee
The panel held that the evidence favored the woman’s status as an employee, not as an independent contractor. The evidence showed that the defendant retained all the necessary control over its training program and over the woman’s activities as an intern. This included controlling the work schedule, the content of the training program, and supervising the woman’s work.
Secondary Borello Factors Favoring Employee Status
In addition to the primary factors, the panel ruled that the secondary Borello factors also supported the woman’s employee status. These factors included whether the employer or the worker supplied the tools and equipment for the work, the length of time for which the services were to be rendered, and the method of payment.
Defendant’s Assumption of Transportation Risks
The panel additionally found that the defendant clearly assumed the risks relating to transportation. The defendant required interns to attend training classes at their office, and the woman had no control over how she was transported to the training. Therefore, in assuming the transportation risk, the defendant was essentially treating the woman as an employee.
This case demonstrates that businesses can’t use the label of “intern” to avoid providing workers’ compensation benefits. The criteria for determining employee status are based on the extent of control and direction an employer exercises over the worker. In this case, the evidence suggests that the defendant had enough control over the intern’s training program and work to establish an employment relationship. Consequently, the court classified the intern as an employee, which entitled her to workers’ compensation benefits for the injuries she sustained. This ruling should serve as a reminder to companies offering internships that they must comply with all relevant labor laws and provide their interns with appropriate compensation and benefits.