32 F.4th 666
8th Cir.2022Background
- Plaintiffs are sexually dangerous civil detainees in Minnesota’s Sex Offender Program (MSOP) who participate in a voluntary Vocational Work Program (VWP) and Minnesota State Industries (MSI).
- Detainees perform institutional and industrial tasks (e.g., cooking, groundskeeping, woodworking, sign production); they are paid $10/hour but the state may withhold up to 50% for program costs and can recover cost-of-care (though very little has been collected).
- VWP/MSI operate for rehabilitation and training; MSI had net losses and any profits must benefit detainees; MSI does not sell interstate or to private entities.
- The State provides detainees with a bed, clothing, meals, medical and dental care, insurance premiums, and basic personal items are available for purchase from the state.
- Plaintiffs sued under the FLSA claiming employee status and minimum-wage entitlement; the district court granted summary judgment to defendants; the Eighth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MSOP detainees are "employees" under the FLSA | Detainees perform work and receive wages, so they qualify as employees entitled to minimum wage | The relationship is custodial/therapeutic, not economic; detainees are not employees under the FLSA | Not employees — summary judgment for defendants affirmed |
| Whether detainees’ basic needs are unmet (FLSA purpose) | State’s provision is inadequate; wage deductions and cost-of-care claims show economic dependence | State provides necessities (housing, meals, medical), so FLSA’s minimum-wage purpose is inapplicable | No genuine dispute; state meets basic needs; favors non-employee finding |
| Unfair competition/antitrust concern from MSI’s low-cost outputs | MSI underprices private vendors (expert testimony) creating anticompetitive effects that implicate FLSA policy | MSI serves state entities, not private market; statutory safeguards limit competitive harm | Potential competition not dispositive; does not convert detainees into employees |
| Applicability of patient-worker regulations and Alamo precedent | Regulations treating some "patient workers" as employees or Alamo’s nonprofit-employee analysis apply | Regulations apply to disabled workers; Alamo involved noncustodial, bargained-for labor unlike MSOP | Regulations/Alamo not applicable; custodial context and lack of bargained-for exchange distinguish the case |
Key Cases Cited
- Tony & Susan Alamo Foundation v. Secretary of Labor, 471 U.S. 290 (Sup. Ct.) (tests for employee status in economic-reality context; noncustodial, bargained-for labor)
- McMaster v. Minnesota, 30 F.3d 976 (8th Cir. 1994) (prisoners not employees; custodial relationship defeats FLSA coverage)
- Sanders v. Hayden, 544 F.3d 812 (7th Cir.) (civil detainees not FLSA employees)
- Matherly v. Andrews, 859 F.3d 264 (4th Cir.) (immigration detainees not employees; no bargained-for exchange)
- Miller v. Dukakis, 961 F.2d 7 (1st Cir.) (sexually dangerous detainees not employees)
- Ndambi v. CoreCivic, Inc., 990 F.3d 369 (4th Cir.) (civil detainees’ custodial status precludes employee classification)
- Danneskjold v. Hausrath, 82 F.3d 37 (2d Cir.) (unfair-competition concerns can affect employee analysis when private commercial employers benefit)
- Whittington v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 21 F.4th 997 (8th Cir.) (summary judgment standard)