990 F.3d 369
4th Cir.2021Background
- Appellants were civil immigration detainees held at the Cibola County Correctional Center in New Mexico, operated by CoreCivic under an IGSA with ICE and a county–CoreCivic service agreement.
- CoreCivic was required by ICE Performance-Based National Detention Standards to run a Voluntary Work Program (VWP) offering janitorial, kitchen, library, and related tasks; participation depended on classification and behavior and was limited to 8 hours/day, 40 hours/week.
- Detainees who participated were paid between $1.00 per day and $15.00 per week—amounts below federal and New Mexico minimum wages but consistent with VWP standards; plaintiffs allege they used those wages for basic needs because facility provisions were allegedly inadequate.
- After release, appellants sued CoreCivic asserting violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act (NMMWA), and unjust enrichment; the district court granted CoreCivic’s 12(b)(6) motion and dismissed.
- The Fourth Circuit affirmed, concluding existing precedent and FLSA principles foreclose treating custodial detainees as "employees" entitled to statutory minimum wages; the court left any expansion of coverage to Congress.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether civil immigration detainees are "employees" under the FLSA/NMMWA | Detainees who performed work in the VWP are employees and thus entitled to minimum wages | Detainees are in a detainer–detainee relationship, not a free-market employment relationship, so they are not FLSA "employees" | Not employees; FLSA does not apply in custodial detention contexts |
| Whether civil (immigration) detention differs from criminal detention for FLSA purposes | Civil detention is non-punitive and should not be treated like prison inmate labor | The custodial nature, not the reason for detention, controls; civil status does not create employee status | Civil detention status does not change the analysis; FLSA still inapplicable |
| Whether a private, for‑profit operator (CoreCivic) makes detainees employees | For-profit operation creates market-competition concerns and implicates FLSA’s purpose to curb unfair competition | Private management does not convert custodial, non‑bargained work into covered employment | For-profit operation does not alter the conclusion that detainees are non‑employees |
| Whether alleged inadequacy of provided necessities entitles detainees to FLSA relief | Plaintiffs claim poor conditions forced them to rely on wages, showing economic dependence akin to employment | Inadequate conditions are a separate constitutional/contractual issue and do not convert detention labor into FLSA employment | Poor conditions are not remedied by applying the FLSA; remedies lie elsewhere, not by judicially expanding FLSA coverage |
Key Cases Cited
- Harker v. State Use Industries, 990 F.2d 131 (4th Cir. 1993) (prison inmates not "employees" under the FLSA because custodial context differs from free labor market)
- Matherly v. Andrews, 859 F.3d 264 (4th Cir. 2017) (reaffirming Harker and rejecting civil detainee’s federal minimum wage claim)
- Alvarado Guevara v. I.N.S., 902 F.2d 394 (5th Cir. 1990) (alien detainees performing facility work are not FLSA employees)
- Bennett v. Frank, 395 F.3d 409 (7th Cir. 2005) (prisoners are not employees for FLSA purposes, whether prison is public or private)
- Smith v. Dart, 803 F.3d 304 (7th Cir. 2015) (inadequate provision of basic needs is a constitutional issue; it does not create entitlement to FLSA minimum wages)