Whaling on Walling: A Uniform Approach to Determining Whether Interns Are 'Employees' Under the Fair Labor Standards Act

• Author: Cody Elyse Brookhouser
• Position: J.D. Candidate, The University of Iowa College of Law, 2015; B.S., The University of Arkansas, 2012
• Pages: 751-773

751

Whaling on Walling: A Uniform Approach

to Determining Whether Interns Are

“Employees” Under the Fair Labor

Standards Act

Cody Elyse Brookhouser



ABSTRACT: This Note argues that, of the tests currently used by circuit

courts to determine who constitutes an “employee” under the Fair Labor

Standards Act, the Supreme Court should clarify that the totality of the

circumstances test is most consistent with its decision in Walling v. Portland

Terminal Co. This issue calls for clarity in light of the influx of litigation

surrounding unpaid internships—most prominently, the rece nt decision in

Glatt v. Fox Searchlight Pictures Inc. With this growth in litigation,

employers and interns alike deserve a uniform approach in determining

“employee” status under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................. 752

II. THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT: WHO CONSTITUTES AN

“EMPLOYEE”? ................................................................................ 753

A. WALLING’S TRAINEE EXCEPTION ............................................. 754

B. INTERPRETATIONS IN THE WAKE OF WALLING ......................... 756

1. Primary Beneficiary Test ............................................... 756

2. Totality of the Circumstances Test ............................... 758

III. THE IMPENDING QUESTION: ARE INTERNS “EMPLOYEES”? .......... 762

A. THE GLATT DECISION ............................................................. 762

B. CONSEQUENCES OF GLATT ....................................................... 766

 J.D. Candidate, The University of Iowa College of Law, 2015; B.S., The University of

Arkansas, 2012. Thank you to my mom for her impartation of [extreme] independence

combined with endless opportunities and support.

752 IOWA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 100:751

IV. THE TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES TEST AS THE UNIFORM

APPROACH FOR DETERMINING WHETHER INTERNS ARE

“EMPLOYEES” ................................................................................ 768

A. TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES’ CONSISTENCY WITH

WALLING ............................................................................... 768

B. BENEFITS OF A UNIFORM TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES

TEST ....................................................................................... 771

V. CONCLUSION ................................................................................ 773

I. INTRODUCTION

Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), employees are guaranteed

a minimum wage for their work.1 However, the FLSA provides virtually no

guidance for determining who constitutes an employee entitled to minimum

wage compensation.2 The United States Supreme Court shed light on the

FLSA’s definition of “employee” only once, in Walling v. Portland Terminal Co.,

in 1947.3 Since then, various circuit courts have interpreted the Walling

opinion and the trainee exception that it created to the FLSA.4 These

attempts have produced varying and inconsistent tests by which the courts

determine whether a worker is an “employee” or a trainee.5

Recently, the focus of these cases has shifted to the ever-popular unpaid

internship.6 Internships provide invaluable experience for students entering

the workforce.7 Further, it has become increasingly difficult for students to

gain post-graduation employment in today’s job market without internship

experience in a given industry.8 However, with circuit courts using varying

tests to determine employee status,9 it has proven difficult for employers to

1. 29 U.S.C. § 206(a)(1)–(2) (2013).

2. See infra notes 22–23 and accompanying text.

3. Walling v. Portland Terminal Co., 330 U.S. 148, 152 (1947).

4. See, e.g., Kaplan v. Code Blue Billing & Coding, Inc., 504 Fed. App’x 831, 834 (11th Cir.

2013), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 618 (2013); Solis v. Laurelbrook Sanitarium & Sch., Inc., 642 F.3d

518, 522–23 (6th Cir. 2011); Reich v. Parker Fire Prot. Dist., 992 F.2d 1023, 1025–26 (10th Cir.

1993); McLaughlin v. Ensley, 877 F.2d 1207, 1208–11 (4th Cir. 1989); Donovan v. Am. Airlines,

Inc., 686 F.2d 267, 271 (5th Cir. 1982).

5. See infra Part II.B.

6. See Ross Perl in, Unpaid Interns: Silent No More, N.Y. TIMES (July 20, 2013), http://www.

nytimes.com/2013/07/21/jobs/unpaid-interns-silent-no-more.html (stating that over 15 unpaid

internship lawsuits have been filed since summer of 2013).

7. See Alison Green, Why Unpaid Internships Should Be Legal, U.S. NEWS (July 1, 2013, 8:55 AM),

http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/outside-voices-careers/2013/07/01/why-unpaid-intern

ships-should-be-legal.

8. See id.

9. See infra Part II.B.