Was Churchill Downs Jockey an ‘Employee’ under Kentucky Law?

What Do You Think?

Louisville, KY (WorkersCompensation.com) -- From time to time at the News Desk, we find ourselves going down a long backstretch of workers' compensation research, and such was the case this week when landed on a case from 44 years ago involving a jockey who experienced injuries during a race at the famed Churchill Downs, home of the Kentucky Derby.

So, here's what happened to 37-year-old John Munday, starting on June 26, 1976. In the race, Munday fell from his horse and suffered injuries that included a fractured vertebra and eventually required surgery. He remained totally disabled until Oct. 1, 1977, although he did perform work as an exercise boy.

On the day at issue, Munday was given prerace instructions by the horse's owner/trainer to stay close and win if he could.

In Munday's push for workers' compensation benefits, he argued that the relationship he had with Churchill Downs was one of an employer and employee. Munday was paid as a freelance, rather than contract, jockey, and he solicited trainers for mounts rather than work under agreement with a particular trainer.

The board and the circuit court ruled against the jockey, prompting him to appeal to the Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

In Kentucky, at the time, part of determining whether a worker was an employee or an independent contractor required courts to consider the extent of control that the "master" could exercise over the details of the work.

Was Munday a Churchill Downs employee or an independent contractor?

A. Employee. Munday was told what to do when he entered the race, indicating that he was under the control of a "master."

B. Independent contractor. The admonition to win the race was only a repetition of a jockey's professional obligation.

If you picked B, you agreed with the court in Munday v. Churchill Downs, Inc., 600 S.W. 2d (Ky. Ct. App. 1980), which upheld the previous rulings in Churchill Downs' favor, finding that the owner/trainer's exercise of control over Munday's worker "was extremely limited."

Although Munday received an instruction to win the race, a rule governing jockeys at the time required riders to ride so as to win or finish as near as possible to first and to demonstrate the best and fastest performance of which the horse was capable.

The "prerace instructions were of a general and informative nature and not calculated to supersede the jockey's professional skills as to the specific details of riding the horse," the court wrote.

How jockeys were paid also favored the independent contractor conclusion. Specifically:

+ Jockeys were paid through the track once a week on a gross basis with no deductions being made for taxes or social security.

+ The track furnished each jockey with an annual 1099 form for tax purposes. 

Additionally, supervision of the racing was in the hands of the stewards, and Churchill Downs did not control the arrival or departure of jockeys or pass on their qualifications.

Thus, the court found that no employment relationship existed, and affirmed the circuit court's ruling against Munday.

Share This Article: