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, 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