On April 25, 2016, the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in a case involving unpaid trainees, but the scope of its ruling was narrower than decisions about unpaid interns made by the Second and Eleventh Circuit Courts of Appeals, as well as by U.S. District Courts in New York and California.
The next time Alabama voters go to the polls, they will have the opportunity to confirm Alabama’s status as a right-to-work state by approving a constitutional amendment.
In an earlier post, I explained about how two U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals had adopted the new primary beneficiary test to determine whether or not an intern should be paid. In that post, I suggested that two courts “leaned” in different directions on this issue, primarily because of the interns in one case were performing work that didn’t appear to be related to their education whereas the interns in the other case were performing work that appeared to be related to their education.
In a previous post, I addressed the subject of unpaid interns and how two circuit courts of appeal had enunciated a new “primary beneficiary test” in addressing litigation of this issue.