For purposes of workers' compensation benefits, the county that engages the services of a Court reporter for the Superior Court is the employer of the reporter, since the county provides and controls the Court reporter's workplace. See State of California Judicial Council of California v. W.C.A.B. et al., (Dooley) (1997) 62 Cal.Comp.Cases 430 (Unpublished).
In holding that a court reporter was an employee of the County of Los Angeles, in County of Los Angeles et al., v. W.C.A.B. (Hart) (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 383 (Writ Denied), after observing that the reporter was not paid per job but rather paid to be available on the day that Court was in session, the Judge stated, in part:
Further, court reporters were required [sic] arrive at 9:00 a.m. and stay until all courtrooms were finished for the day. The court reporters were required to work exclusively in the criminal courtrooms and were precluded from working in the civil courtrooms.
In addition, the court reporters were given a key to enable them to park in the employee's parking lot and were given keys to the courtrooms, the judge's elevator and the court reporter's office. The office had a telephone in it provided by the court. Applicant's lunch breaks, bathroom breaks and breaks throughout the day were determined by the judge for whom she was reporting. Applicant was told what would be appropriate attire. Applicant was provided with a table and chair in the courtroom to perform her services. In addition, the Applicant could quit employment at any time and the court could terminate Applicant's employment at any time. Applicant testified that following a trial, the courts required that she maintain her notes so that transcripts could be requested at any time following the trial up to a designated period of years. The court reporters were then obligated to prepare those transcripts. It is clear that the court exercised control over Applicant's daily activities. It is also true that Applicant provided her own court reporting machine and paper, however, the overwhelming evidence is that Applicant was an employee and under the control of the courts in the performance of her duties. She was not simply hired to produce an end result, she was in fact required to keep certain hours, to perform her work in a certain manner, take breaks only when allowed by the judge and to basically comport herself on a daily basis per the requirements of the court system. Therefore, it was found that Applicant was an employee of the County of Los Angeles Municipal Court....