- 12 -
officer's on-duty activities and to preserve the
Department's image. This type of broad control is
qualitatively different from the type of direct,
operational control implicit in the employer-employee
relationship. See Party Cab Co. v. United States, 172
F.2d 87, 92-93 (7th Cir. 1949). Similarly, we
recognize that petitioner's off-duty activities may
have been constrained by Department rules and
regulations. The general application of those rules,
however, relates to petitioner's status as a member of
the Department and is not specifically aimed at
controlling the details of petitioner's activities
while working * * * [off-duty]. For example, the mere
fact that petitioner might be reprimanded by the
Department if he abandons his off-duty job without
notice does not necessarily mean the Department
controls his off-duty employment activities. Rather,
any conduct unbecoming a police officer, such as
abandoning a job, would presumably violate the
Department's rules and regulations whether such conduct
related to off-duty employment or not.
As in March, the incidental control that the Department had over
petitioner's off-duty employment is simply not sufficient to
support a finding that petitioner performed the off-duty services
for the companies as an employee of the Department.
Nothing has been presented in this case that persuades us to
depart from our reasoning in March. The facts in March are so
similar to the facts in this case that different results would
not be justified.
Furthermore, we find petitioner's apparent obligation to
accept on-duty assignments to be in sharp contrast to the absence
of any such obligation with respect to off-duty employment. The
Department had absolutely no control over petitioner with respect
to his decision to decline suitable employment offers from third
parties. The Department's lack of control over this aspect of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011