Definition
Employment is the relationship or state in which a person is engaged in work, service, or occupation — whether for another party or in one's own affairs. In its broadest legal sense, the term encompasses three related but distinct concepts:
1. The relationship between an employer and employee: the engagement of a person to perform services under another's direction and control, typically in exchange for compensation. This is the dominant modern legal usage, triggering obligations under labor law, workers' compensation, tax law, and anti-discrimination statutes.
2. An occupation, trade, or ongoing business activity: any work or productive endeavor that consumes time and effort, whether or not it involves service to another. A person engaged in their own business may be "in employment" even with no employer.
3. The act or state of being put to use: employment of an agent, tool, or resource in furtherance of a purpose. This usage survives in contract and agency law contexts.
The threshold question in most legal disputes is not whether work was performed, but whether the relationship qualifies as employment — determining which legal framework applies and who bears associated duties.
Common Language
Modern common usage (Wiktionary): The occupation or work for which one is used, and often paid; the act or state of employing; also, a purpose or use.
Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): That which engages or occupies; office or post of business; service — as in agricultural, mechanical, or public employments.
The common-language definitions center on paid work and productive activity and largely match the broadest legal sense. The legal meaning diverges in one critical direction: whether a particular arrangement constitutes "employment" rather than independent contracting, casual labor, or self-employment carries significant legal consequences the ordinary definition does not capture. The legal system treats the word not merely as a description of activity, but as a threshold classification that activates or withholds entire bodies of law.
Common Confusion
EMPLOYMENT VS. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTING
A person performing work under contract is not automatically an employee. The legal test for employment focuses on control — whether the hiring party directs how, when, and where the work is done, not merely the result. Misclassification of employees as independent contractors is a significant area of litigation and regulatory enforcement. The word "employment" in a historical document does not resolve this question; it must be assessed against the legal standard operative in the relevant jurisdiction and period.
Core Elements
The existence of an employment relationship is typically assessed by examining:
Control: Whether the employer directs the manner and means of performance, not just the outcome.
Integration: Whether the worker's services are integral to the employer's regular business operations.
Economic dependence: Whether the worker is economically dependent on the alleged employer or operates as an independent business.
Consent and engagement: Whether the parties entered a relationship of service, with the worker holding themselves available to perform.
No single factor is universally determinative. Different legal regimes — tort, workers' compensation, tax, labor law — may apply their own tests, producing different results for the same arrangement.
Why It Matters in Research
The term "employment" is one of the most context-sensitive words in the legal corpus. Its meaning shifts depending on the legal regime, the era, and the purpose of the inquiry.
Historical sources use the word broadly. Black's first edition expressly notes that a person may be "employed" about their own business — a formulation that would confuse modern employment-law analysis, where the concept is almost always relational. Researchers encountering "employment" in 19th-century materials should not assume the modern employer-employee framework is implied.
The temporal scope of employment is also contested in historical sources. Bouvier's cites authority for the proposition that employment does not begin or end strictly with hours of active work — it may commence when an employee enters the employer's premises and continue during departure. This boundary question recurs in workers' compensation cases and remains live today.
The corpus contains two distinct doctrinal lines worth distinguishing: the contract-formation questions (what creates or terminates an employment relationship, addressed in the Contracts encyclopedia entries) and the structural questions about multi-party arrangements (joint employer and co-employment doctrine, addressed in the Employment encyclopedia entry). A researcher working through disputes involving staffing agencies, subcontractors, or franchise relationships should consult both tracks.
Anderson's treatment of "employ" as a verb — to engage in service, equivalent to "hire" with respect to servants and laborers — reflects an older usage that collapses distinctions modern law draws carefully. The word "hire" in historical sources may refer to what modern law calls employment, but the reverse is not always true.
Historical Dictionary Support
The four shelf sources converge on a broad, activity-centered definition but diverge in instructive ways.
Black's (both editions) push against the narrowest reading, stating explicitly that the word "does not necessarily import an engagement or rendering services for another" — a person may be employed in their own affairs. This formulation reflects 19th-century usage in which employment described productive engagement generally, not a bilateral legal relationship.
Bouvier's shifts the focus toward the worker's legal position within that relationship. The cited Kentucky authority on the temporal scope of employment — beginning when the employee enters the employer's premises, ending when they depart — shows the term already functioning as a legal threshold with consequences for injury liability, not merely a descriptive label.
Anderson's emphasizes the definitional cluster: occupation, position, service, and the transactional sense of the verb "to employ" (to engage, to commission, to intrust). His equation of employment with hire in the context of servants and laborers reflects the common-law background from which modern employment doctrine grew.
None of the shelf sources address the independent contractor distinction in any developed way, reflecting that the systematic legal separation of employees from independent contractors is largely a 20th-century development. Researchers should not read the silence as irrelevant; it signals that historical materials simply did not require the precision modern classification disputes demand.
Jurisdictional Note
Employment classification standards vary significantly. Federal law applies multiple tests depending on the statute at issue — the economic realities test under the Fair Labor Standards Act differs from the common-law control test used in tax and agency contexts. State workers' compensation and wage-and-hour laws add further variation. Several states have adopted ABC tests that presume worker status is employment unless the hiring party affirmatively establishes otherwise.
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
Employment Contracts — At-Will Employment and Exceptions (The Law Mind Contracts & Commercial Law Encyclopedia)
Joint Employer and Co-Employment Doctrine (The Law Mind Employment & Labor Law Encyclopedia)
Employment Contracts — Arbitration Clauses in Employment Agreements (The Law Mind Contracts & Commercial Law Encyclopedia)