Navigating the Legal Waters of the Unpaid Internship
Amid a continuing wave of lawsuits initiated by unpaid interns against their former employers, companies must pay particular attention to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), in addition to state and local laws, which may view unpaid interns as "employees."
July 31, 2017 at 11:50 AM
13 minute read
As summer is now in full swing and students have joined the professional workforce, employers must be sure to familiarize themselves with the law pertaining to unpaid internships. Amid a continuing wave of lawsuits initiated by unpaid interns against their former employers, companies must pay particular attention to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), in addition to state and local laws, which may view unpaid interns as “employees”—having a non-waivable right to be paid at least the minimum wage and overtime wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours per week.
|Federal Law
Because the FLSA defines the term “employ” very broadly, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) utilizes a broad definition of “employees.” DOL Fact Sheet #71 provides some guidance on how to structure an internship so that it fits within a narrow exception to the FLSA employee wage requirement. According to the Fact Sheet, there are six criteria that must be met in order to show the absence of an employment relationship:
|- The internship, even though it includes actual operation of the facilities of the employer, is similar to training which would be given in an educational environment;
- The internship experience is for the benefit of the intern;
- The intern does not displace regular employees, but works under close supervision of existing staff;
- The employer that provides the training derives no immediate advantage from the activities of the intern; and on occasion its operations may actually be impeded;
- The intern is not necessarily entitled to a job at the conclusion of the internship; and
- The employer and the intern understand that the intern is not entitled to wages for the time spent in the internship.
This means that in order to hire unpaid interns, you must meet all six of the above factors to remain in compliance with federal law.
|New Jersey Employers
Employers in New Jersey must be sure to comply with both the federal and state law regulating internships. In addition to satisfying the U.S. DOL criteria above, employers in New Jersey must meet the following nine additional requirements:
|- The training is for the primary benefit of the trainee;
- The employment for which the trainee is training requires some cognizable trainable skill;
- The training is not specific to the employer, that is, it is not exclusive to its needs, but may be applicable elsewhere for another employer or in another field of endeavor;
- The training, even though it includes actual operation at the facilities of the employer, is similar to that which may be given in a vocational school;
- The trainee does not displace an existing employee on a regular job nor supplement a regular job, but trains under close tutorial observation;
- The employer derives no immediate benefit from the efforts of the trainee and, indeed, on occasion may find his or her regular operation impeded by the trainee;
- The trainee is not necessarily entitled to a job at the completion of training;
- The training program is sponsored by the employer, is outside regular work hours, the employee does no productive work while attending and the program is not directly related to the employee's present job (as distinguished from learning another job or additional skill); and
- The employer and the trainee share a basic understanding that regular employment wages are not due for the time spent in training, provided that the trainee does not perform any productive work.
See N.J.A.C. 12:56-2.1.
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
© 2024 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 AllEEOC Nominees Are Questioned About Workplace Sexual-Orientation Discrimination
4 minute readCorporate Friend or Balanced Perspective? EEOC Chair Nominee's Experience Is Debated
22 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Dechert partners Andrew J. Levander, Angela M. Liu and Neil A. Steiner have stepped in to defend Arbor Realty Trust and certain executives in a pending securities class action. The complaint, filed July 31 in New York Eastern District Court by Levi & Korsinsky, contends that the defendants concealed a 'toxic' mobile home portfolio, vastly overstated collateral in regards to the company's loans and failed to disclose an investigation of the company by the FBI. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Pamela K. Chen, is 1:24-cv-05347, Martin v. Arbor Realty Trust, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Arthur G. Jakoby, Ryan Feeney and Maxim M.L. Nowak from Herrick Feinstein have stepped in to defend Charles Dilluvio and Seacor Capital in a pending securities lawsuit. The complaint, filed Sept. 30 in New York Southern District Court by the Securities and Exchange Commission, accuses the defendants of using consulting agreements, attorney opinion letters and other mechanisms to skirt regulations limiting stock sales by affiliate companies and allowing the defendants to unlawfully profit from sales of Enzolytics stock. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Andrew L. Carter Jr., is 1:24-cv-07362, Securities and Exchange Commission v. Zhabilov et al.
Who Got The Work
Clark Hill members Vincent Roskovensky and Kevin B. Watson have entered appearances for Architectural Steel and Associated Products in a pending environmental lawsuit. The complaint, filed Aug. 27 in Pennsylvania Eastern District Court by Brodsky & Smith on behalf of Hung Trinh, accuses the defendant of discharging polluted stormwater from its steel facility without a permit in violation of the Clean Water Act. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Gerald J. Pappert, is 2:24-cv-04490, Trinh v. Architectural Steel And Associated Products, Inc.
Who Got The Work
Michael R. Yellin of Cole Schotz has entered an appearance for S2 d/b/a the Shoe Surgeon, Dominic Chambrone a/k/a Dominic Ciambrone and other defendants in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed July 15 in New York Southern District Court by DLA Piper on behalf of Nike, seeks to enjoin Ciambrone and the other defendants in their attempts to build an 'entire multifaceted' retail empire through their unauthorized use of Nike’s trademark rights. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald, is 1:24-cv-05307, Nike Inc. v. S2, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Sullivan & Cromwell partner Adam S. Paris has entered an appearance for Orthofix Medical in a pending securities class action arising from a proposed acquisition of SeaSpine by Orthofix. The suit, filed Sept. 6 in California Southern District Court, by Girard Sharp and the Hall Firm, contends that the offering materials and related oral communications contained untrue statements of material fact. According to the complaint, the defendants made a series of misrepresentations about Orthofix’s disclosure controls and internal controls over financial reporting and ethical compliance. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Linda Lopez, is 3:24-cv-01593, O'Hara v. Orthofix Medical Inc. et al.
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