Skip to main content

Criminal Defendant Does Community Service Then Wants to be Paid Minimum Wage for the Work Performed? Nice Try, But No


Doyle v. The City of New York - United States District Court, Southern District of New York


Facts:  Plaintiffs were a group of individuals who performed services for the City of New York in exchange for dismissal of minor criminal charges.  The plaintiffs were not paid for completing the required community service.  These plaintiffs subsequently brought suit against the City and alleged that they qualified as employees for the work they performed, and thus were entitled to minimum wage for the services they rendered.  The City moved to dismiss the claims on the grounds that the plaintiffs were not "employees" under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and in the alternative, they fit within the statutory exemption for "volunteers". 

Holding:  As the Court noted, this was an issue of first impression.  (For those not familiar with that phrase, the Court referred to the fact that this was the first time this type of legal issue had been raised.  As a result, there is often little caselaw to rely upon to refer to as precedent).  The Court initially looked at the somewhat vague way the FLSA defines "employee" and focused on the fact that the FLSA does not extend to persons "who, without promise or expectation of compensation, but solely for...personal purpose or pleasure, worked in activities carried on by other persons either for their pleasure or profit."

As for the City's claim that the plaintiffs were volunteers, the Court disagreed.  The plaintiffs did not fall within the Department of Labor four part test for determining whether a person is a "volunteer" because the plaintiffs had no "civic, humanitarian, or charitable reasons" for performing the community service.  Consequently, the case could not be dismissed on those grounds.

However, when the Court looked to whether the plaintiffs were actually "employees" under the FLSA, the Court sided with the City's argument.  The facts demonstrated that the plaintiffs did not perform work "for the purpose of enabling them to earn a living."  The Court looked to the fact that the plaintiffs committed to do community service as a way to avoid harsher penalties for the crimes they committed.  Consequently, the Court held that under this reasoning, the plaintiffs were not employees under the FLSA. 

Judgment:  The District Court dismissed plaintiffs' claims on the grounds that doing community service in order to dismiss criminal charges did not qualify the plaintiffs to allege a valid FLSA lawsuit and claim they should be paid minimum wage for the community service they performed. 

The Takeaway:  I have to admit, of all the "novel" arguments I have seen, I am a bit surprised this type of issue has not come up before.  Given that it was an issue of first impression, I think the Court tracked the FLSA and Department of Labor guidelines effectively to reach the right conclusion.  If a party chooses to do something, like community service, in exchange for a dismissal or reduction of criminal charges, it is a bit far fetched to allow them to then claim they are also entitled to minimum wage for any work done.  These plaintiffs certainly had an interesting argument to make, but as the Court held, the community service work they performed, and the basis for doing so, did not justify designating them as "employees" that would be entitled to minimum wage.

Majority Opinion Judge:  Judge Furman

Date:  March 4, 2015

Opinion:  hr.cch.com/ELD/DoyleNewYork.pdf

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more

Utah Non-Compete Bill Falters in House

Last month, a non-compete bill sponsored by Representative Brian Greene (Republican from Pleasant Grove) & up for vote in the Utah House failed to make it through the Legislature.  The bill sought to ban enforcement of non-competes if they came after a worker was already employed, given no compensation (such as a bonus or promotion) for signing the non-compete, and laid off within six months.  However, by a 22 - 49 vote, the bill was resoundingly defeated after some business groups lobbied to kill the non-compete bill.  One group in particular, The Free Enterprise Utah coalition, argued that the Utah State Legislature should hold off on any changes to non compete laws in the state until a survey about non competes was done among Utah businesses.  Representative Greene had countered this claim and argued that a survey was not needed to show that the current non compete laws in the states allowed many businesses, including some small high tech companies in the state, to per
Post a Comment
Read more