Summer Interns: Who Are They? Are You Classifying Them Properly?
While state laws may vary on this subject, when it comes to the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), in determining whether an unpaid internship passes muster, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) is most concerned with the purpose of the internship and who is benefiting from it.
April 06, 2018 at 11:50 AM
5 minute read
As the summer draws near, many companies are considering bringing on summer interns. Interns are students or trainees who work in an organization in order to gain work experience or satisfy educational requirements. An internship can, and hopefully will, benefit the company that uses such a program. For example, internships may provide a pool of potential new hires for the company, serve as a source of inexpensive labor, foster a positive public image, and build beneficial relationships with local communities and educational institutions. The question that always arises is: Does a company have to pay its summer interns? The short answer is: It depends on how you structure your intern program.
While state laws may vary on this subject, when it comes to the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), in determining whether an unpaid internship passes muster, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) is most concerned with the purpose of the internship and who is benefiting from it. The primary issue, of course, is that, if the intern is actually an employee, he or she must be treated and paid like an employee (which would include the related requirements of tracking hours, receiving overtime, etc.)
When the DOL is trying to determine whether a company is properly classifying unpaid interns, it reviews the following factors under the “primary beneficiary test”:
- The extent to which the intern and the employer clearly understand that there is no expectation of compensation. Any promise of compensation, express or implied, suggests the intern is an employee—and vice versa.
- The extent to which the internship provides training that is similar to that which would be given in an educational environment, including the clinical and other hands-on training provided by educational institutions.
- The extent to which the internship is tied to the intern's formal education program by integrated coursework or the receipt of academic credit.
- The extent to which the internship accommodates the intern's academic commitments by corresponding to the academic calendar.
- The extent to which the internship's duration is limited to the period in which the internship provides the intern with beneficial learning.
- The extent to which the intern's work complements, rather than displaces, the work of paid employees while providing significant educational benefits to the intern.
- The extent to which the intern and the employer understand that the internship is conducted without entitlement to a paid job at the conclusion of the internship.
The primary beneficiary test is flexible—no single factor is determinative and whether an intern is an employee depends on the circumstances of each case. If analysis of the circumstances reveals that an intern is actually an employee, then he or she is likely entitled to both the minimum wage and overtime compensation under the FLSA. On the other hand, if the analysis confirms that the intern is not an employee, then he or she is not entitled to either the minimum wage or overtime pay under the FLSA.
Companies must be careful as to how they identify their workers, as misclassification may lead to assessments of back wages, unpaid overtime and damages. In addition, the FLSA has restrictions on the use of child labor, which could come into play when reviewing intern ranks. Companies should consider taking the following steps as they bring on interns this summer:
- Have a clearly written agreement in place with the intern stating there is no expectation of compensation, that the intern is receiving school credits (if applicable), the duration of the internship, the expectations for the internship, what the company expects the intern to learn from the position, that the internship is not a guarantee of future employment, and other relevant terms.
- Ensure the intern is not displacing a regular employee.
- Verify that the intern will benefit from the relationship more than the company will.
- Permit the intern to shadow employees, assist in their tasks, and attend trainings and meetings to observe company operations—even if these activities do not further the operations of the company.
- Conduct regular feedback sessions and provide instruction and guidance to the intern. Ask interns for feedback, suggestions, and what they would like to learn and do. For example, if the internship is tied to an educational degree program, ensure the intern is learning what he or she needs to in order to further the relevant educational goals.
- Consider having a designated mentor for the intern who ensures the intern is engaged and receives educational opportunities throughout the summer.
Interns can benefit your company in many ways but remember an intern is not just free labor—you need to do your part to make sure the internship is truly meeting the DOL's requirements.
Good luck and have a great summer!
Deepa Subramanian is a shareholder at Ogletree Deakins and represents employers in all aspects of employment law, including employment litigation and counseling. She also advises and defends clients in federal and state employment-related lawsuits, including actions alleging discrimination, harassment, retaliation, violations of wage and hour law, and breach of contract.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllCFPB Proposes Rule to Regulate Data Brokers Selling Sensitive Information
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Paul Hastings, Recruiting From Davis Polk, Continues Finance Practice Build
- 2Chancery: Common Stock Worthless in 'Jacobson v. Akademos' and Transaction Was Entirely Fair
- 3'We Neither Like Nor Dislike the Fifth Circuit'
- 4Local Boutique Expands Significantly, Hiring Litigator Who Won $63M Verdict Against City of Miami Commissioner
- 5Senior Associates' Billing Rates See The Biggest Jump
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250