ADAMS v. REPUBLIC SERVICES, INC.
Filing
40
MEMORANDUM ORDER denying 28 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Renee Marie Bumb on 2/19/2014. (dmr)
<![CDATA[
[Docket No. 28]
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
CAMDEN VICINAGE
KEITH ADAMS,
Plaintiff,
Civil No. 12-267 (RMB/KMW)
v.
REPUBLIC SERVICES, INC.,
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Defendant.
THIS MATTER comes before the Court upon a motion for summary
judgment filed by defendant Republic Services, Inc. (“Republic”)
against plaintiff Keith Adams (“Plaintiff”).
For the following
reasons, the motion is denied.
Republic is a waste service company that provides solid
waste collection, recycling and disposal services.
Republic’s
Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (“RSUMF”) ¶ 1.
Ready is a temporary employment agency.
RSUMF ¶ 2.
Labor
On February
20, 2008, Labor Ready and Republic entered into an agreement
wherein Labor Ready agreed to provide temporary employment
services to Republic including full or part-time personnel to
assist Republic.
RSUMF ¶ 3.
One such position was a “helper”
whose duties included riding on the outside of a garbage truck
1
and carrying trash bags and containers to the truck for disposal.
RSUMF ¶ 8.
Plaintiff accepted temporary work assignments from
Labor Ready.
RSUMF ¶ 9.
On January 4, 2011, Plaintiff was working as a helper in
Republic’s trash collection services.
He was injured as he was
attempting to assist a Republic driver repair a damaged kick bar.
Id. ¶ 19. Pl.’s Counter Statement ¶ 1.
Plaintiff thereafter
filed a claim for Workers’ Compensation benefits with Labor
Ready’s insurance carrier, which is currently pending.
Resp. ¶ 20.
Pl.’s
Republic contends that it is entitled to summary
judgment because Plaintiff’s claims are barred under New Jersey’s
Workers’ Compensation Act.
The law is well-settled, and the parties do not dispute,
that an employee who collects workers’ compensation benefits as a
result of a workplace accident may not bring a negligence cause
of action against his employer.
N.J.S.A. 34:15-8; see also
Blessing v. T. Shriver & Co., 94 N.J. Super. 426 (App. Div.
1967), Flint v. Langer Transport Corp., 762 F.Supp. 2d 735, 743
(N.J. 2011). Moreover, the parties do not dispute that a
claimant, for the purposes of workers’ compensation, may have two
employers, and a recovery against one bars the employer from
maintaining a tort action against either one for the same injury.
Blessing, 94 N.J. Super. at 429-30.
Courts look to five factors
to determine whether or not the second employer, here, Republic,
2
was Plaintiff’s employer, thereby implicating the exclusivity
provision of the Workers’ Compensation Act: (a) whether the
employee has made a contract of hire, express or implied, with
the special employer; (b) whether the work being done is
essentially that of the special employer; (c) whether the special
employer has the right to control the details of the work; (d)
whether the special employer pays the lent employee’s wages; and
(e) whether the special employer has the power to hire, discharge
or recall the employee.
Blessing, 94 N.J. Super. at 430.
Summary judgment shall be granted if “the movant shows that
there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the
movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
P. 56(a).
Fed. R. Civ.
A fact is “material” if it will “affect the outcome of
the suit under the governing law . . . .” Anderson v. Liberty
Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).
A dispute is “genuine” if
it could lead a “reasonable jury [to] return a verdict for the
nonmoving party.”
Id.
When deciding the existence of a genuine
dispute of material fact, a court’s role is not to weigh the
evidence: all reasonable “inferences, doubts, and issues of
credibility should be resolved against the moving party.”
Meyer
v. Riegel Prods. Corp., 720 F.2d 303, 307 n.2 (3d Cir. 1983).
Upon review of the pleadings and the record, the Court finds
that there are genuine disputes as to material facts regarding
whether Republic was a special employer, thus, precluding the
3
grant of summary judgment.
Although Republic counters that many
of Plaintiff’s claims are either irrelevant or unsupported, all
reasonable inferences are to be drawn in favor of the non-moving
party.
See Meyer, 720 F.2d at 307 n.2.
Because no single factor
is dispositive on the special employer issue, and each case must
be evaluated considering the totality of the circumstances,
Antheunisse v. Tiffany & Co., Inc., 229 N.J. Super. 399 (App.
Div. 1988), the Court finds that this issue should go before the
jury.
See Pacenti v. Hoffman-LaRoche, 245 N.J. Super. 188, 192-
93 (App. Div. 1991).
As for Plaintiff’s claim that Republic intentionally injured
him, such allegation may not be raised here for the just theme.
A plaintiff cannot amend his pleadings in a summary judgment
motion. Holland Simon Prop. Grp., Inc., No. 12-2251, 2012 WL
3711869, at *3 n.4 (ed Cir. Aug. 28, 2012).
As this claim is not
properly pled, the Court need not address it.
Accordingly, for the above reasons;
IT IS ON THIS 19th day of February 2014, ORDERED that
Defendant Republic Services, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment
be and is hereby DENIED.
s/Renée Marie Bumb
RENÉE MARIE BUMB
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
