Definition
To employ means to engage a person to perform work or services, typically in exchange for compensation and under some degree of direction or control by the engaging party. As a verb, it appears in statutes and administrative contexts with a meaning equivalent to "appoint" — that is, to place a person in a position or assign duties to them by authority of law or organizational hierarchy.
The related noun forms — EMPLOYEE or EMPLOYE (the French-derived spelling appearing in older American legal sources) — denote the person so engaged. An employee is broadly understood as one who performs services for another under conditions where the employer controls not only the result of the work but the manner in which it is performed. This distinguishes the employee from the independent contractor, who controls the means and methods of performance.
Common Confusion
EMPLOY / APPOINT: In general usage these words are distinct — one "appoints" officers and "employs" workers. In federal statutory interpretation, however, the two terms have at times been treated as functional equivalents. Bouvier's notes that in the Revised Statutes, "employ" was used as the equivalent of "appoint." This overlap matters when determining whether a position triggers constitutional or statutory requirements attached to "appointment" of officers, including Appointments Clause analysis under Article II. Researchers should not assume the two terms are interchangeable outside the specific statutory contexts in which courts have so held.
EMPLOYEE / INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR: The word "employee" does not carry a single fixed legal meaning across all bodies of law. Tax law, labor law, tort law, and employment discrimination law each apply their own tests for determining who qualifies as an employee rather than an independent contractor. A person classified as an employee under one regime may not be so classified under another.
Why It Matters in Research
The term "employ" sits at the intersection of administrative law, constitutional law, and labor law — and its meaning shifts depending on which body of law is controlling.
In constitutional research, the employ/appoint distinction is not merely semantic. Whether a position is one of "employment" or "appointment" can determine whether the Appointments Clause governs the selection process. Cases and opinions treating "employ" as equivalent to "appoint" in specific statutory contexts should not be read as collapsing this distinction wholesale.
In labor and employment research, the definition of "employee" is the threshold question for nearly every statutory protection — wage and hour coverage, anti-discrimination protections, collective bargaining rights, workers' compensation eligibility. Because each statute may carry its own definition, corpus researchers should identify which statutory or regulatory framework governs before applying any general definition.
In historical sources, "employe" (single e, French spelling) appears alongside "employee" well into the twentieth century. These are the same word; the spelling variation reflects the term's French origin and the lag in anglicization. Do not treat them as distinct terms.
The older legal literature tends to confine "employee" to persons of lower or middle rank — clerks, workers, agents performing defined tasks — and to distinguish them from "officers" holding positions of public trust or statutory authority. This hierarchical distinction appears in Bouvier's and in early court of claims decisions. Modern usage has largely abandoned this rank-based distinction in private-sector contexts, though it retains relevance in public employment and constitutional officer analysis.
Historical Dictionary Support
Bouvier's Law Dictionary offers two useful observations. First, it records the statutory usage of "employ" as equivalent to "appoint," supported by attorney general opinions and Supreme Court citation — evidence that the term's meaning in federal administrative law was contested and required interpretive resolution. Second, Bouvier's definition of "employe/employee" emphasizes breadth: the term covers persons working inside or outside the employer's principal place of business, a clarification that was practically important when courts were determining employer liability for workplace injuries and respondeat superior claims.
Bouvier's also notes that "employee" was not typically applied to higher officers of a company or government — a reflection of the era's tendency to distinguish officers (who hold authority) from employees (who perform tasks under direction). This distinction has eroded in private law but remains significant in public law contexts.
What historical dictionaries do not address adequately is the fragmentation of "employee" status across modern regulatory regimes. The multi-test landscape — economic realities test, common law control test, ABC test — postdates the major historical dictionaries entirely and must be sourced from statutory text, agency guidance, and case law rather than from the dictionary shelf.
Jurisdictional Note
The definition of "employee" varies by jurisdiction and by statute. Some states have adopted expansive definitions — notably in wage and hour law — that presume worker status and require employers to affirmatively demonstrate independent contractor classification. Federal statutes often carry their own embedded definitions. Researchers should identify the governing statute and jurisdiction before applying any general definition.