On March 12, 2024, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a putative class action wage and hour lawsuit brought by three golf course attendants who volunteered at a public golf course operated by Palm Beach County, Florida and alleged they were not paid minimum wage. The three-judge panel in Adams et al. v. Palm Beach County rejected the plaintiffs’ arguments that they were employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and equivalent state law, instead, affirming the decision that they were unpaid volunteers.
The attendants' services included greeting customers, carrying and loading customers’ golf clubs, retrieving carts and balls from the driving ranges, policing the pace of play, and collecting trash. In exchange, the club gave them reduced rates to play golf. Although the judges noted that private golf clubs pay wages for these types of services, they analyzed the claims under the public-agency volunteer exception to the definition of “employee” under the FLSA.
Generally, the FLSA mandates certain rights for non-exempt employees, including minimum wage and overtime pay. However, the FLSA exempts bona fide public agency volunteers from its definition of “employee,” but only if the individual receives no payment beyond his expenses paid, reasonable benefits, or a nominal fee (and only if the individual is not employed in the position to which he has volunteered).
The plaintiffs argued that they were not bona fide volunteers because they performed ordinary work not necessarily related to helping the public. The plaintiffs also argued that reduced-fee access to a world-class golf club was a significant benefit that should be construed as compensation akin to wages, making them employees. The judges rejected the plaintiffs’ arguments in turn.
First, the judges applied the “economic reality” test to determine that discounted golf rounds did not constitute compensation. Although the judges acknowledged that some benefits, like food, shelter, and transportation, are considered compensation, the judges explained that these benefits are necessities that can readily be considered in-kind substitutes for cash. But golf, the judges reasoned, is an inherently recreational activity, and cheaper access to golf is not the same as access to food, clothing, or medical benefits. The judges also noted that the monthly value of the attendants’ savings was minimal.
The judges next rejected the plaintiffs’ arguments that they should be considered employees because caddying was not inherently volunteer work and did not serve the public. The judges reviewed the FLSA statutes and regulations, and found no basis to limit or restrict the types of work that a bona-fide public agency volunteer could perform. The judges also cited the plaintiffs’ own complaint, which included allegations that the attendants were essential to the operation of the public golf course and its ability to attract the public.
Finally, the judges noted that the attendants could not have reasonably expected any other payment when they were never promised payment, the advertisements for the volunteer positions did not indicate any benefit other than the discounted golf rounds, and the individual attendants had each worked at the course for years without receiving payment.
The decision provides several guideposts for public employers looking to maintain the public agency volunteer exception, including considerations such as the tenure of the volunteer, the advertisement of any remuneration, and the type of benefit offered. Additionally, private golf courses facing caddy misclassification issues should heed the dicta in the decision that assumed “[p]rivately owned golf clubs must pay wages to attendants providing comparable services.”
