Opinion ID: 36018
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: entertainment expenses by Liberty.

Text: The first factor is who has the right of con- trol over the employee. The district court Liberty and LWCC contend that Dyson’s notes that in the accident report, Liberty work was performed in furtherance of ELI, as describes Dyson as its “leased employee from the sole owner of Liberty. Naturally, any Seacor,” which indicates that Liberty initially work done by any employee of Liberty would claimed responsibility or control over Dyson. be to the benefit of the intermediate holding Liberty and LWCC object to the court’s company (and, by extension, the parent reliance on this fact, however, charging that corporation, Seacor), and to argue that ELI this is the only bit of evidence that would was the real employer simply because of this suggest that Dyson was under Liberty’s is, essentially, a semantic attempt to confuse. control. This is not the case. Both parties Evidence plainly demonstrates that Dyson’s acknowledge that Dyson was under the direct work directly benefited Liberty, which thereby control of Butch Guidry, the operations indirectly helped ELI. To reason that ELI was manager for ELI and Liberty, who was in turn the sole beneficiary of Dyson’s work directly under Joe Sarne, the president of both. contravenes the evidence and ignores the fact Liberty and LWCC aver that Guidry was an that ELI, as an intermediate holding company, employee of Seacor, but Guidry’s deposition conducts no actual business, nor does it retain indicates that although his paycheck came any employees. Any benefits ELI accrues from Seacor, all his duties were with ELI and come from the work done by its subsidiary opLiberty. Though Dyson may not have been erating companies. under the supervision of Liberty’s vice president Richard Johnston, the only people In the district court, LWCC and Liberty alwho could be considered his supervisors were ternatively argued that Dyson performed work officers of ELI and LibertySSnot SeacorSSthus for Seacor. In his deposition, however, Guidsuggesting that ultimate control over Dyson’s ry stated quite plainly that Dyson performed work lay in Liberty’s hands, not Seacor’s. no work for Seacor, nor did Dyson consider himself an employee of Seacor’s.