New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira, Docket 17-340

Social Security

Labor Law

Workers’ Compensation

Employee: definition

(…) See Carlson, Why the Law Still Can’t Tell an Employee When It Sees One and How It Ought To Stop Trying, Berkeley J. Emp. & Lab. L. 295, 309 (2001) (discussing the “historical baggage” of the term “servant”); Broden, General Rules Determining the Employment Relationship Under Social Security Laws: After Twenty Years an Unsolved Problem, 33 Temp. L. Q. 307, 327 (1960) (describing use of the term “employer-employee,” in contradistinction to “master-servant,” in the Social Security laws). Legislators searched to find a term that fully encompassed the broad protections they sought to provide and considered an “assortment of vague and uncertain terms,” including “‘servant,’ . . . ‘employee,’ . . . ‘workman,’ ‘laborer,’ ‘wage earner,’ ‘opera­tive,’ or ‘hireling.’” Carlson, Berkeley J. Emp. & Lab. L., at 308. Eventually “‘employee’ prevailed, if only by default, and the choice was confirmed by the next wave of protective legislation—workers’ compen­sation laws in the early years of the Twentieth Century.” Id., at 309. (Op., fn. 7).

(U.S. Supreme Court, Jan. 15, 2019, New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira, Docket 17-340, J. Gorsuch)