Has the court rewritten the rules on who counts as a volunteer? Have they just made it easier for volunteers to sue?
Just found out that either last year or earlier this year that a California appeals court rewrote the rules on who counts as a volunteer. The decision, handed down January 6 either 2025 or 2026 (found conflicting info), "establishes a new framework that could force organizations to rethink how they classify unpaid workers."
But then, I found this article, apparently posted in April, saying that "a Chicago federal judge has ruled people who work in the Salvation Army’s thrift stores while enrolled the organization’s rehabilitation programs aren’t actually employees and can’t sue for allegedly unpaid wages."
The case centers on the Salvation Army's substance abuse rehabilitation programs in San Francisco, Stockton, and Chico. Three former program participants claimed they were actually employees, not volunteers, and that they worked full-time in the nonprofit's thrift stores without getting paid minimum wage or overtime. All three worked what they say were full-time hours sorting donations, unloading trucks, assisting customers, and handling various warehouse and store operations. In exchange, they received room and board, meals, small amounts of cash, and rehabilitation services, including counseling and classes.
The Salvation Army called it work therapy, designed to help participants build job skills and stay focused during recovery. The participants saw it differently, arguing they were doing the same jobs as paid employees, just without paychecks. So they filed a class action lawsuit, seeking back wages.
A trial court sided with the Salvation Army, ruling that without an agreement to pay wages, there was no employment relationship. Case closed.
Not so fast, said the Court of Appeal, which threw out that reasoning and sent the case back for reconsideration.
"organizations need to document that volunteers chose to participate freely and are getting personal benefits beyond a paycheck substitute. They also need to show their programs serve legitimate purposes, not just cheap labor needs. The burden falls on employers to prove workers should be classified as volunteers, not the other way around."
But then, earlier this year, a Chicago federal judge ruled that the plaintiffs had presented “plenty of evidence that it was not a good rehabilitation program” as “‘work therapy’ was not a clinically tested method of overcoming substance abuse, many plaintiffs dropped out or could not maintain sobriety and stability after leaving the program, and the work assignments were simply menial tasks with no educational or vocational training to equip participants for advancement outside the walls” of the Salvation Army rehab program centers. “Although the scale of the operation and its arguable ineffectiveness as therapy could look like plaintiffs worked a job like any other, the economic reality is to the contrary. The relationship between plaintiffs and The Salvation Army was not employee–employer; plaintiffs were independent actors who did not reasonably expect compensation when participating in the temporary program of rehabilitation services offered by The Salvation Army.”
So, I'm not sure really where that leaves nonprofits...