February 22, 2018

February 21, 2018

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

February 20, 2018

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

February 19, 2018

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

DOL Adopts More Flexible Test for Classifying Interns

The Department of Labor (“DOL”) announced its adoption of a new test on January 5, 2018, for determining whether interns are employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”).  In recent years, many for-profit employers have been hesitant to hire interns given the lack of clarity surrounding the applicable standard and the potential for enforcement actions or litigation due to risks of misclassifying employees as interns.  The DOL’s adoption Friday of the so-called “primary beneficiary” test brings greater clarity and flexibility to the classification of interns and may open the door for the revitalization of diminished internship programs at for-profit organizations. 

The FLSA requires for-profit employers to pay employees for their work.  “Employee” is a defined term under the FLSA, and interns and students may qualify as employees to whom compensation must be paid under the FLSA. 

Previously, in determining whether an intern was properly classified as unpaid, the DOL focused on whether the employer received an “immediate advantage” from the intern’s work.  When the DOL determined that the employer received an “immediate advantage,” it concluded that the intern was an employee owed compensation under the FLSA.  Courts and employers alike criticized the DOL’s test as too rigid and impractical for the modern internship.  Still, risks ran high for employer mistakes, exposing employers to enforcement actions and lawsuits to recover back pay and an additional equal amount as liquidated damages.  

With its announcement Friday, the DOL clarified that it would update its enforcement policies to conform with the more flexible primary beneficiary test already adopted by four federal appellate courts.  The newly adopted primary beneficiary test eschews the immediate advantage factor in favor of a more nuanced test focusing on the “economic reality” of the intern-employer relationship. 

Under the newly adopted primary beneficiary test, the DOL now uses a seven-factor test to determine whether the employer or the intern is the primary beneficiary of the relationship. The test is intended to be flexible and dependent upon the unique circumstances of each case.  No one factor is determinative.  Indeed, in its statement announcing the adoption of the primary beneficiary test, the DOL noted that the change would “eliminate unnecessary confusion among the regulated community” and provide the Wage and Hour Division with “increased flexibility to holistically analyze internships on a case-by-case basis.”   

 

The seven factors are:

1. The extent to which the intern and the employer clearly understand that there is no expectation of compensation.  Any promise of compensation, express or implied, suggests that the intern is an employee—and vice versa.

2. The extent to which the internship provides training that would be similar to that which would be given in an educational environment, including the clinical and other hands-on training provided by educational 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 the intern with beneficial learning.

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.

7. The extent to which the intern and the employer understand that the internship is conducted without entitlement to a paid job at the conclusion of the internship.

 

Employers should take steps to ensure their interns meet this test.  Each internship should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.  In doing so, employers should carefully consider the structure of their internship programs and those of the schools with which they affiliate any compensation and the methods of payment, and any agreements with the interns or the schools.

Copyright © 2018 Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP All Rights Reserved.

TRENDING LEGAL ANALYSIS


About this Author

Beth Tyler Jones, Womble Carlyle Law Firm, Employment and Education Law Attorney
Partner

Beth practices primarily in the areas of employment and education law. She concentrates her practice on providing effective counseling and compliance assistance to enable her clients to manage risks proactively. She is a leader of the Firm’s Education Team.

Beth uses her experience as a human resources professional and in-house legal counsel to assist employers, both public and private, in complying with all federal and state employment laws including preparing policies, procedures, programs, plans, handbooks...

919-755-8177
Rebecca Fleishman, Womble Carlyle Law Firm, Raleigh, Education and Employment Attorney

Rebecca Fleishman practices in the areas of education and employment law, representing and advising institutions of higher education, public charter schools, and corporations in litigation and day-to-day compliance. She counsels clients in employment, student, and policy matters and draws on her experience as a federal judicial clerk and staff attorney to guide and advocate for clients through all stages of litigation.

Prior to joining Womble Carlyle, Rebecca represented public school systems in student and employment matters and in litigation. She has represented clients before the North Carolina Office of Administrative Hearings, the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, the U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and North Carolina state and federal courts.   

919-755-2176