Wage & Hour Defense Blog : Wage & Hour Lawyer & Attorney : Epstein Becker Green Law Firm : DOL Enforcement, FLSA Coverage

By Amy Traub and Desiree Busching

Like the fashions in the magazines on which they work and the blockbuster movies for which they assist in production, unpaid interns are becoming one of the newest, hottest trends— the new “it” in class action litigation. As we previously advised, there has been an increased focus on unpaid interns in the legal arena, as evidenced by complaints filed by former unpaid interns in September 2011 against Fox Searchlight Pictures, Inc. and in February 2012 against Hearst Corporation. In those lawsuits, unpaid interns working on the hit movie “Black Swan” and at Harper’s Bazaar magazine, respectively, alleged that their high-profile employers violated federal and state wage-and-hour laws by failing to pay them for work they claim was more aptly suited for paid employees.

The newest case to hit the scene on this issue has been filed by Lucy Bickerton, a former unpaid intern of “The Charlie Rose Show” on PBS. In her March 14, 2012 complaint, Bickerton alleges that she worked for the show in 2007 for approximately 25 hours per week and that the show and its host had her performing “productive work”—work for which she claims she, and other interns like her, should have been paid.

According to a press release issued by the plaintiffs’ firm that has filed all three of these prominent unpaid intern cases, “[s]ince filing a lawsuit on behalf of unpaid Fox [Searchlight Pictures, Inc.] interns late last year, our office has received numerous calls from other current and former interns who were not paid for the productive work they performed. This [Bickerton] lawsuit should send a clear message to employers that the practice of classifying employees as ‘interns’ to avoid paying wages runs afoul of federal and state wage and hour laws.”

The clear message received is that this firm is on the offensive, and others will undoubtedly soon follow suit. For employers who have checked their unpaid internship programs to ensure that they are in compliance with the tests utilized by both federal and state agencies and courts in analyzing whether individuals qualify as “interns,” it is time to double-check. With the attention this issue is seeing in the media and before the courts, it is clear that if misclassified unpaid interns are not paid now, employers may just be paying later.

By:  Douglas Weiner

The following sounds like a “win-win” situation, doesn’t it? An enthusiastic and energetic individual approaches you with a proposal to volunteer his or her time and services to gain valuable experience in your industry. “After all,” reasons the prospective volunteer, “how can I get my first job if I have no experience in the field of my choice?” Ambitious job seekers may approach an employer volunteering to work as an unpaid “trainee” or “intern” to gain skills, experience and contacts in their chosen field.

However, vigilant employers will not merely accept the prospective intern’s agreement to do volunteer work, but will apply the required legal analysis.  Despite the individual's offer to work for free, the Department of Labor may reclassify the individual as an employee, and require the employer to pay back wages for all hours worked, including overtime.     

An unpaid internship must be primarily for the benefit of the trainee, rather than the employer. Certain employers have established training programs for interns that do qualify for exclusion from the Fair Labor Standards Act. The criteria an employer must satisfy is set forth in Fact Sheet #71: The Test for Unpaid Interns  When all six criteria are met, an employment relationship does not exist under the FLSA, and the federal minimum wage and overtime provisions do not apply to the individual. 

For employers considering an unpaid internship program for one or more individuals, we recommend certain policies, practices and procedures be implemented as precautionary measures.

• Distinguish interns from employees. Create written policies devoted exclusively to the interns; avoid using the same policies and handbooks for both interns and employees.
   
• Review handbooks to remove terminology from written policies that blurs the line distinguishing interns from employees (for example, written policies should not say that an intern is being “hired”, or refer to interns as “Associates” or “Summer Associates” .).
   
• Require a signed written statement from the prospective intern evidencing the understanding that the intern has no expectation of wages, and the employer makes no guarantee of a job at the end of the internship.
   
• Document expense reimbursements, if any, to specific expenses with receipts to evidence that there were bona fide expenses incurred by the intern that were, in fact, reimbursed. Without records the DOL may conclude the “expense reimbursements” were disguised wages.

Conclusion

Employers must carefully assess the benefits, and risks, of managing an unpaid internship. Unless an employer is able to establish that the criteria set forth in Fact Sheet #71 are met, the DOL is likely to find that an intern is an employee who must be paid minimum wage and overtime.