On March 12, 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (covering Alabama, Florida, and Georgia) affirmed the dismissal of a putative class action wage and hour lawsuit brought by three golf course attendants who signed up to volunteer at a golf course operated by Palm Beach County, Florida.
In their published opinion, a three-judge panel held that golf attendants who received discounted golf rounds in exchange for services provided to a county-owned golf club were “volunteers” rather than employees and were not owed wages under federal or Florida law.
By way of background, the three named plaintiffs in the case, Adams v. Palm Beach County, were volunteer golf attendants at the county-owned Osprey Point Golf Club and sought to represent a class of bag-drop attendants, driving range attendants, and course rangers at four county-owned golf courses. The golf attendants responded to advertisements by the Palm Beach County Parks and Recreation Department seeking “volunteers” to perform services at the Osprey Point golf club in exchange for benefits such as discounted golf rounds.
The attendants performed services for the club including: greeting customers; carrying and loading customers’ golf clubs; cleaning balls, clubs, and carts; retrieving carts from and returning carts to cart barns; patrolling the range and policing the pace of play; raking sand traps and filling divots; collecting trash; and retrieving balls from the driving range. The county treated the attendants as volunteers, allowing them to accept tips — but neither promising nor paying wages. The volunteers filed suit, alleging that the county failed to pay them minimum wage in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the Florida Minimum Wage Act (FMWA), and Article X Section 24 of the Florida Constitution.
The attendants argued that, because they received discounted golf, which has monetary value, they did not fall under the “public-agency volunteer” exemption to the FLSA, which exempts volunteers who serve a public agency and received either “no compensation” or only “expenses, reasonable benefits, or a nominal fee” for their services. According to the attendants, because they did not fall under the public-agency volunteer exemption, they were therefore entitled to wages.
The court disagreed, finding that the attendants received discounted rounds of golf as “reasonable benefits” for their services — notas inadequate compensation. The court further noted that the attendants could not prove any “promise, expectation or receipt” of employee compensation because they specifically applied for “volunteer” positions with the golf club that were not paid. Indeed, the only pecuniary benefits that the attendants were promised or received were reduced fees for golf and the opportunity to receive tips from customers during some period that they served as attendants. Importantly, the court noted that the attendants voluntarily chose to serve the golf club in positions that they knew were crucial to providing civic benefits to citizens of Palm Beach County.
The court concluded that, in dismissing the case, the district court correctly ruled that the attendants were not promised, could not have reasonably expected, and did not receive any “compensation” for their services because reduced golf fees are not “wages in another form” under any economic reality.
The Eleventh Circuit’s decision is a welcome result for public agencies that operate recreational facilities serving the public that increasingly use volunteers to staff and operate facilities in exchange for certain perks, such as reduced rates for golf. Proper categorization of workers — including unpaid volunteers — under the FLSA continues to be a critically important employment law compliance topic. As we have previously written, tools such as wage and hour self-audits are an effective way to get out ahead of any potential wage and hour liability exposure employers may face.
