COLUMBIA, S.C. — In the case of LeAndra Lewis v. Dynasty, d/b/a Boom Boom Room Studio 54 and S.C. Uninsured Employers’ Fund, Lewis, and exotic dancer, traveled throughout North Carolina and South Carolina to perform at different clubs. She was injured by a stray bullet while working at one of those venues. In total, she had performed at that venue three times. She had never filed a tax return and produced no documentation indicating where she worked or what her total income was. The question before the South Carolina Supreme Court was whether Lewis was an employee of the venue she performed at that night and therefore eligible for workers’ compensation through that club. Considering the relationship in total, the South Carolina Supreme Court found that the club wherein she appeared and was injured exercised control over the manner in which she performed sufficiently to make her an employee.
The issue presented was whether the court of appeals err in finding Lewis was an independent contractor, not an employee of the Club? The single commissioner in the original worker’s compensation determination found that Lewis was an independent contractor because she was an “itinerant artistic performer” and denied compensation. Additionally, the commissioner stated that had Lewis established she was an employee, her compensation rate would be $75 per week based on Lewis’s failure to produce evidence of the income she earned at other establishments. The appellate panel of the Workers’ Compensation Commission affirmed, adopting the single commissioner’s order. On appeal, the court of appeals affirmed in a split decision. Lewis v. L.B. Dynasty, Inc., 400 S.C. 129, 732 S.E.2d 662 (Ct. App. 2012). The majority found that Lewis was an independent contractor.
In analyzing the nature of a work relationship the Court examined four factors: (1) direct evidence of the right or exercise of control; (2) furnishing of equipment; (3) method of payment; (4) right to fire. Shatto v. McLeod Reg’l Med. Ctr. , 406 S.C. 470, 475–76, 753 S.E.2d 416, 419 (2013). Each factor was considered with equal force and the mere presence of one factor indicating an employment relationship was not dispositive of the inquiry.
