Search form

Labor Department Adopts ‘Primary Beneficiary’ Test for Determining Employee Status of Interns, Students

By Jeffrey W. Brecher, Alison B. Crane and Neil H. Dishman
  • January 16, 2018

The Department of Labor has decided to align its analysis under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) of the intern-vs.-employee determination with that of the majority of federal appellate courts to have addressed the issue, abandoning the stricter Obama-era analysis. The agency announced on January 5, 2018, that it was adopting the “primary beneficiary” test to determine the employee status of interns and students.

Interns and students working for “for-profit” employers are entitled to minimum wages and overtime pay if they are determined to be employees under the FLSA. To determine whether interns and students are employees, the primary beneficiary test focuses on the economic realities of the relationship to decide whether the intern or the employer is the primary beneficiary of the internship program.

Background

In December 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit became the fourth federal appellate court to expressly reject the DOL’s standard for determining whether interns and students are employees under the FLSA. The DOL followed with its announcement that it would employ the primary beneficiary test approved by three of those four appellate courts, abandoning its six-factor test.

The DOL six-factor test, adopted in 2010, required that all six factors be present for the intern to avoid qualification as an employee subject to the FLSA’s minimum wage and overtime requirements. The most controversial factor was the requirement that the employer could derive no “immediate advantage” from the intern’s work.

Primary Beneficiary Test

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in Glatt v. Fox Searchlight Pictures, Inc., 811 F.3d 528 (2d Cir. 2015), rejected the DOL’s six-factor test. Instead, the Second Circuit adopted a non-exhaustive, seven-factor test aimed at assessing whether the employer or the individual was the “primary beneficiary” of the relationship. (For details of the decision, see our article, ‘Primary Beneficiary’ Test Determines Employee Status of Unpaid Interns, Federal Appeals Court Rules.)

Those factors include:

  1. The extent to which the intern and the provider of the internship clearly understand that there is no expectation of compensation. Any promise of compensation, express or implied, suggests that the intern is an employee;
  2. The extent to which the internship provides training similar to that which would be given in an educational environment, including the clinical and other hands-on training provided by education institutions;
  3. The extent to which the internship is tied to the intern’s formal education program by integrated coursework or the receipt of academic credit;
  4. The extent to which the internship accommodates the intern’s academic commitments by corresponding to the academic calendar;
  5. The extent to which the internship’s duration is limited to the period in which the internship provides beneficial learning to the intern;
  6. The extent to which the intern’s work complements, rather than displaces, the work of paid employees while providing significant educational benefits to the intern; and
  7. The extent to which the intern and the provider of the internship understand that the internship is conducted without entitlement to a paid job at the conclusion of the internship.

Under the Second Circuit’s analysis, no one factor is dispositive or preclusive in determining whether an individual is an intern or an employee. The Glatt analysis subsequently was adopted by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in Schumann v. Collier Anesthesia, P.A., 803 F.3d 1199 (11th Cir. 2015). Most recently, it was adopted by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Benjamin v. B&H Education, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 25672 (9th Cir. Dec. 19, 2017). The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit also rejected the DOL’s former analysis, in Hollins v. Regency Corp., 867 F.3d 830 (7th Cir. 2017), although that appeals court did not expressly adopt Glatt’s primary beneficiary test.

WHD Enforcement

Finally, the DOL said, “[The] Wage and Hour Division will update its enforcement policies to align with recent case law, eliminate unnecessary confusion among the regulated community, and provide the Division’s investigators with increased flexibility to holistically analyze internships on a case-by-case basis.”

An updated “ Fact Sheet #71: Internship Programs Under the Fair Labor Standards Act” is available on the Wage and Hour Division website.

The DOL’s adoption of the “primary beneficiary” test gives employers a more uniform standard to apply when implementing internship programs.

Please contact Jackson Lewis with any questions about the intern-vs.-employee analysis or any other wage and hour issues.

©2018 Jackson Lewis P.C. This Update is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended as legal advice nor does it create an attorney/client relationship between Jackson Lewis and any readers or recipients. Readers should consult counsel of their own choosing to discuss how these matters relate to their individual circumstances. Reproduction in whole or in part is prohibited without the express written consent of Jackson Lewis.

This Update may be considered attorney advertising in some states. Furthermore, prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Jackson Lewis P.C. represents management exclusively in workplace law and related litigation. Our attorneys are available to assist employers in their compliance efforts and to represent employers in matters before state and federal courts and administrative agencies. For more information, please contact the attorney(s) listed or the Jackson Lewis attorney with whom you regularly work.

See AllRelated Articles You May Like

May 7, 2018

California Supreme Court Broadens Definition of Employee in Independent Contractor Analysis

May 7, 2018

Diverging from decades-old precedent, the California Supreme Court has broadened the definition of “employee” in the context of the State’s Industrial Work Commission (IWC) wage orders when undertaking the employee-versus-independent contractor analysis. Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 2018 Cal.... Read More

April 18, 2018

Massachusetts Equal Pay Act Calculation Tool: What Employers Need to Know

April 18, 2018

Ever since Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker signed the state Equal Pay Act (MEPA) on August 1, 2016, employers have been seeking direction on how employee pay should be analyzed to withstand scrutiny under the new law. MEPA goes into effect on July 1, 2018. On March 1, 2018, the Massachusetts Office of the Attorney General (OAG)... Read More

April 4, 2018

Retail Industry Workplace Law Update – Spring 2018

April 4, 2018

When ICE Knocks Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, is responsible for enforcement of laws related to unlawful employment of workers, and the agency’s increased enforcement activities should have retailers reviewing their plans. Read full article… Washington Ban-the-Box Law Limits Criminal Background Inquiries Retailers... Read More

Related Practices