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,...
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