Antheunisse v. Tiffany & Company, Inc.
New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division
551 A.2d 1006, 229 N.J. Super. 399 (1988)
- Written by Serena Lipski, JD
Facts
Susan Antheunisse (plaintiff) worked for Pat Shea Personnel Agency (Pat Shea). Pat Shea assigned Antheunisse to work at Tiffany & Company, Inc. (Tiffany) (defendant) as temporary help during the holiday season. Antheunisse was informed of her assignment at Tiffany and had the option to reject the assignment without reprisal. Antheunisse accepted. Tiffany screened all applicants before accepting them. Tiffany accepted Antheunisse and assigned her to its packing department, where she packed china and crystal. Tiffany trained Antheunisse, and Tiffany had the power to supervise, discharge, or recall Antheunisse. Antheunisse had to comply with Tiffany’s policies. Pat Shea only processed Antheunisse’s paychecks. Tiffany paid Pat Shea $6.50 per hour for Antheunisse’s work, and Pat Shea paid Antheunisse $5 per hour. At season’s end, Antheunisse would return to Pat Shea for a new assignment. While Antheunisse was working for Tiffany, she injured her knee. Antheunisse filed a claim for workers’-compensation benefits from Pat Shea and a tort claim against Tiffany. Tiffany moved for summary judgment, arguing that Tiffany was a special employer of Antheunisse and, therefore, Antheunisse’s exclusive remedy was workers’ compensation. The trial court granted Tiffany’s motion, and Antheunisse appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Gruccio, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.