Skip to main content

College Student Athletes are NOT Employees Entitled to Compensation Under the FLSA


Berger v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, et al. - United States District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division


Facts:  Three plaintiffs brought suit against the National Collegiate Athletic Association ("NCAA") and 123 NCAA school on the grounds that while the plaintiffs were members of the women's track track and field team at the University of Pennsylvania ("Penn"), they were employees of Penn and entitled to compensation.  The plaintiffs asked the Court to certify the case as a class action while the defendants moved to dismiss the claim on the grounds that the plaintiffs lacked a valid Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") claim.

Holding:  The Court noted that in order for plaintiffs to proceed on their claim, the matter hinged on whether the plaintiffs were characterized as "employees" of Penn, under the FLSA.  While the FLSA provides the definition of what constitutes an "employee", the Court pointed out that it must examine the "economic reality" of the working relationship.  

While the plaintiffs had argued that the test set forth in a 2010 United States Department of Labor "fact sheet" should control the issue, the Court disagreed.  The factors included in the "fact sheet" were not designed to apply to student athletes and instead there was on evidence to suggest the "fact sheet" was intended to be applied out of the internship context.  Further, the "fact sheet" was found to not address activities in an educational setting; instead, it addressed programs that take place at facilities of for profit private sector employers.

In this case, the Court noted that the Seventh Circuit's approach to determining who is an employee under the FLSA is flexible.  Traditionally, "generations of Penn students have vied for the opportunity to be part of that revered tradition [participating in college sports] with no thought of any compensation."  The Court held that led to the conclusion that students at Penn who chose to participate in sports as part of their educational experience did so because they viewed it as beneficial to them.  Further, the fact that thousands of unpaid college students participate in sports at colleges across the country and yet the Department of Labor has not taken any action to apply the FLSA to them was found to be persuasive by the Court. 

Judgment:  The District Court held that the FLSA claim brought by plaintiffs should be dismissed on the grounds that the plaintiffs did not qualify as "employees" entitled to compensation while they were college athletes at the University of Pennsylvania.

The Takeaway:  Interesting case as the whole issue over whether collegiate athletes are entitled to compensation continues to be a brewing issue.  Readers might remember several prior articles I have written on employment and labor law issues at the collegiate level, such as the former University of Houston soccer player who filed an FLSA suit or even the Northwestern University football players who attempted to unionize.  I understand the Court's reasoning here and think its analysis of the "fact sheet" not being applicable to student athletes was correct.  

However, I had trouble agreeing with the portion of the opinion that held that since the Department of Labor had not taken any action to apply the FLSA to college students who participate in sports, that was evidence that the college students were not "employees" entitled to FLSA protections.  That sounds a lot like using a negative to prove a positive.  Something can certainly be said for the fact that if this was a real issue, the Department of Labor likely would have stepped in by this point.  However, I do not think the fact that nothing had been done on the matter (yet), should have been a controlling factor.  Granted, the Court noted that no single factor was necessarily controlling and instead, it was more of a flexible analysis.  I think that was a good "out" to allow the Court room to use a myriad of factors to rely upon in support of its decision to dismiss the claim...without tying itself to one single factor.

As well, note this is one Court's ruling.  Something tells me this is not the last we have heard of the issue...  

Majority Opinion Judge:  Judge Lawrence

Date:  February 16, 2016

Opinion:  https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjSxv7T7Z_LAhWC6SYKHR7cBwkQFggoMAI&url=https%3A%2F%2Fecf.insd.uscourts.gov%2Fcgi-bin%2Fshow_public_doc%3F12014cv1710-238&usg=AFQjCNEuTTudQ_DkWSNiUs_tgpwIYXm7Mg&sig2=cp_3fFfBCDXzPgHRHvUzKQ&bvm=bv.115339255,d.eWE

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,...
Post a Comment
Read more

San Diego Rolls Back Vaccine Mandate For City Workers

Last Tuesday, the San Diego City Council voted to do away with the vaccine mandate for city employees. The city’s vaccine mandate that was in place required city workers to get the coronavirus vaccine or risk termination.  Perhaps to this surprise of no one, the city’s policy came under fire with 14 employees being terminated and over 100 other employees resigning.  With the coronavirus subsiding, including in Southern California, the San Diego City Council took action. Now, bear in mind, the repeal of the vaccine mandate does not take place immediately. With that being said, the mandate will be repealed March 8th.  I suppose the question now is, what other cities or regions follow San Diego’s lead? For additional information:   https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2023-01-24/san-diego-repeals-controversial-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-citing-drop-in-cases-hospitalizations
Post a Comment
Read more

NLRB: Former Employee Cannot Be Barred From Work Premises After Filing Wage Suit

MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC - NLRB Facts :  MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC d/b/a Grand Sierra Resort & Casino ("GSR") operated a facility that included a hotel, casino, restaurant, clubs, bars, and a pool which were all open to the general public.  Tiffany Sargent ("Sargent") was briefly employed by GSR as a "beverage supervisor" in December of 2012.  After her employment ended, Sargent continued to socialize at one of the clubs.  GSR had a long standing practice of allowing former employees to patronize its facility and did not prohibit Sargent from doing so.  In June of 2013, Sargent and another employee filed a class and collective action against GSR for alleged unpaid wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada law.  In July of 2014, GSR denied Sargent access to an event at one of the clubs.  GSR followed up with a letter and stated that with the on-going litigation (from the wage suit), it decided to bar Sargent from the premises. ...
1 comment
Read more