The U.S. Department of Justice is advertising for experienced, licensed “volunteer” attorneys to work for a year or two without pay alongside Assistant U.S. Attorneys, who earn a starting salary of more than $75,000.
If such an advertisement was placed by a private employer, it would raise questions of legality? How does the Justice Dept. get away with blatant exploitation of workers?
The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) requires employers to pay workers the minimum wage and overtime except in a few limited circumstances – those who volunteer for religious, charitable, civic or humanitarian non-profit organizations and (you guessed it) individuals who volunteer to perform services for a state or local government agency. The only time a for-profit employer can get away without paying a worker is when the worker is a so-called “intern,”
All of this comes at a time of high unemployment for lawyers, particularly graduating law school students.
The Wall Street Journal did a story on Sept. 2, 2011 stating there currently is less than one opening for every 100 working attorneys. Unemployment is a serious problem for attorneys, just as it is for every other occupation right now. The unpaid “volunteers” displace regular employees. Also, there is just something downright hypocritical about the situation. How can federal prosecutors go after employers who violate the FLSA with a straight face?
Finally, there is a great deal of “classism” in our society. We bemoan the immigrant farm worker who is cheated by the big farm corporation but it’s OK for some reason to exploit attorneys? Is it some kind of misguided vanity that allows the bar to look at a situation such as this and fail to see the problem?
Without the FLSA exemption, the use of unpaid Special Assistant U.S. Attorneys (SAUSA) would clearly violate the FLSA.
The SAUSA does not qualify as an intern because training is not the primary purpose of the SAUSA; because the government derives benefit from the SAUSA’s work; and, the SAUSA is doing the work of a regular employee and replaces regular employees.
The SAUSA is already a trained, licensed, experienced professional. In fact, they have to have “outstanding” academic records and “superior” research and writing skills. The SAUSA works alongside paid Assistant U.S. Attorneys doing legal research, drafting briefs, conducting hearings and trials, and attending judicial proceedings . The “volunteer” gets nothing except the dim, uncertain hope of future employment.
Imagine a situation where a SAUSA, who is working for nothing, prosecutes a for-profit employer for failing to pay just wages and overtime.
The DOL issued a “fact sheet” last year listing the circumstances that dictate whether or not an intern must be paid. Essentially, a for-profit institution does not have to pay an employee whose work serves only his or her own interests. The DOL listed six criteria to determine whether a worker is a bona fide intern:
- The internship 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.
There is little question that a SAUSA does not qualify as an “intern” and that is probably why the SAUSA is not called an intern.
Ironically, the Justice Department advertisements assure that it is an “Equal Opportunity/Reasonable Accommodation” employer.
(Note: this is Part II of a story written on Sept. 7, 2011, Justice Department Seeks Law-Unteers)
