I just saw a squib for Evans v. Washington Center for Internships and Academic Seminars, 2008 WL 4937007 (D.D.C. Nov. 19), holding that:
Plaintiff's sexual harassment claims fail because she was not an “employee” within the meaning of the [D.C. Human Rights Act]. The DCHRA defines an employee as “any individual employed by or seeking employment from an employer.” The statute defines an employer as “any person who, for compensation, employs an individual....” Plaintiff did not satisfy this definition, as she was not working for compensation, nor was she seeking a paid job. Moreover, while this issue has never been decided under the DCHRA, it has consistently been held under Title VII that an unpaid intern is not an employee.
Well, OK, the plaintiff was an intern at a chiropractor's office, but naturally that wasn't the first sort of employer that came to mind when I read the summary .... And, just to be extra precise, this case also reflects that it is not a violation of the federal Title VII to sexually harass interns in D.C. or elsewhere.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Pro-plaintiff textualism?
- Not Illegal in D.C. to Sexually Harass Interns:
Thus in this case if there is no employment, there is no actionable claim.
Another result is that the harrasment has to be discriminatory. Defendants occassionally (albeit usually not succesfully) claim that they are not liable because they do not discriminate. IOW, "yes, I am a loud mouthed jerk who treats everyone like C--P, but I do so to men and women alike, so I am not liable." Once had a client who argued that -- he lost badly.
Well, yeah.
Otherwise the entire purpose of interns would be defeated, right?
Because they are volunteers, not employees. It's a different story if one is paid a wage, but the wage is less than that mandated by FLSA.
What's your authority for saying that volunteers who are completely unpaid are not subject to minimum wage? I read Tony &Susan Alamo Foundation, 471 U.S. 290 (1985), as holding that employers cannot avoid minimum wage by characterizing as "unpaid interns" individuals who are actually treated as employees.
Also, I don't think that the concept of a volunteer at a for-profit enterprise (I am assuming that at least one of the defendants is a for-profit enterprise) is consistent with the FLSA.
I'm not trying to shout you down here-I'm genuinely interested in resolving the question of whether the plaintiff in this case has a FLSA claim. It seems to me that there are a large number of FLSA violations going on under the guise of "internships." I've been wondering for quite some time if that's the case.
I thought that's why people hired them! Why else would you want an inexperienced twenty year old running around the office?
If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.
Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.
We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.
And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.