471 U.S. 290 (1985), 83-1935, Tony and Susan Alamo Foundation v. Secretary of Labor

Docket NºNo. 83-1935
Citation471 U.S. 290, 105 S.Ct. 1953, 85 L.Ed.2d 278, 53 U.S.L.W. 4489
Party NameTony and Susan Alamo Foundation v. Secretary of Labor
Case DateApril 23, 1985
CourtUnited States Supreme Court

Page 290

471 U.S. 290 (1985)

105 S.Ct. 1953, 85 L.Ed.2d 278, 53 U.S.L.W. 4489

Tony and Susan Alamo Foundation

v.

Secretary of Labor

No. 83-1935

United States Supreme Court

April 23, 1985

Argued March 25, 1985

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

EIGHTH CIRCUIT

Syllabus

Petitioner Foundation is a nonprofit religious organization that derives its income largely from the operation of commercial businesses staffed by the Foundation's "associates," most of whom were drug addicts, derelicts, or criminals before their rehabilitation by the Foundation. These workers receive no cash salaries, but the Foundation provides them with food, clothing, shelter, and other benefits. The Secretary of Labor filed an action in Federal District Court against the Foundation and petitioner officers thereof, alleging violations of the minimum wage, overtime, and recordkeeping provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (Act). The District Court held that the Foundation was an "enterprise" within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 203(r), which defines that term as "the related activities performed . . . by any person or persons for a common business purpose," that the Foundation's businesses serve the general public in competition with ordinary commercial enterprises, and that, under the "economic reality" test of employment, the associates were "employees" of the Foundation protected by the Act. The court rejected petitioners' arguments that application of the Act to the Foundation violated the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment. The Court of Appeals affirmed as to liability.

Held:

[105 S.Ct. 1956] 1. The Foundation's businesses constitute an "enterprise" within the meaning of the Act, and are not beyond the Act's reach because of the Foundation's religious character. This Court has consistently construed the Act liberally in recognition that broad coverage is essential to accomplish the goal of outlawing from interstate commerce goods produced under conditions that fall below minimum standards of decency. The Act contains no express or implied exception for commercial activities conducted by religious or other nonprofit organizations, and the Labor Department has consistently interpreted the Act to reach such businesses. And this interpretation is supported by the legislative history. Pp. 295-299.

2. The Foundation's associates are "employees" within the meaning of the Act, because they work in contemplation of compensation. Walling v. Portland Terminal Co., 330 U.S. 148, distinguished. The fact that

Page 291

the associates themselves protest coverage under the Act is not dispositive, since the test of employment under the Act is one of "economic reality." And the fact that the compensation is primarily in the form of benefits, rather than cash, is immaterial in this context, such benefits simply being wages in another form. Pp. 299-303.

3. Application of the Act to the Foundation does not infringe on rights protected by the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment. The Free Exercise Clause does not require an exemption from a governmental program unless, at a minimum, inclusion in the program actually burdens the claimant's freedom to exercise religious rights. Here, since the Act does not require the payment of cash wages and the associates received wages in the form of benefits in exchange for working in the Foundation's businesses, application of the Act works little or no change in the associates' situation; they may simply continue to be paid in the form of benefits. But even if they were paid in cash and their religious beliefs precluded them from accepting the statutory amount, there is nothing in the Act to prevent them from voluntarily returning the amounts to the Foundation. And since the Act's recordkeeping requirements apply only to commercial activities undertaken with a "business purpose," they would have no impact on petitioners' own evangelical activities or on individuals engaged in volunteer work for other religious organizations. Pp. 303-306.

722 F.2d 397, affirmed.

WHITE, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

WHITE, J., lead opinion

JUSTICE WHITE delivered the opinion of the Court.

The threshold question in this case is whether the minimum wage, overtime, and recordkeeping requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 52 Stat. 1060, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., apply to workers engaged in the commercial

Page 292

activities of a religious foundation, regardless of whether those workers consider themselves "employees." A secondary question is whether application of the Act in this context violates the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment.

I

The Tony and Susan Alamo Foundation is a nonprofit religious organization incorporated under the laws of California. Among its primary purposes, as stated in its Articles of Incorporation, are to

establish, conduct and maintain an Evangelistic Church; to conduct religious services, to minister to the sick and needy, to care for the fatherless and to rescue the fallen, and generally to do those things needful for the promotion of Christian faith, virtue, and charity.1

The Foundation does not solicit contributions from the public. It derives its income largely from the operation of a [105 S.Ct. 1957] number of commercial businesses, which include service stations, retail clothing and grocery outlets, hog farms, roofing and electrical construction companies, a recordkeeping company, a motel, and companies engaged in the production and distribution of candy.2 These activities have been supervised by petitioners Tony and Susan Alamo, president and secretary-treasurer of the Foundation, respectively.3 The businesses are staffed largely by the Foundation's "associates," most of whom were drug addicts, derelicts, or criminals before their conversion and rehabilitation by the Foundation. These workers receive no cash salaries, but the Foundation provides them with food, clothing, shelter, and other benefits.

Page 293

In 1977, the Secretary of Labor filed an action against the Foundation, the Alamos, and Larry La Roche, who was then the Foundation's vice-president, alleging violations of the minimum wage, overtime, and recordkeeping provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 206(b), 207(a), 211(c), 215(a)(2), (a)(5), with respect to approximately 300 associates.4 The United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas held that the Foundation was an "enterprise" within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 203(r), which defines that term as "the related activities performed . . . by any person or persons for a common business purpose." 567 F.Supp. 556 (1983). The District Court found that despite the Foundation's incorporation as a nonprofit religious organization, its businesses were "engaged in ordinary commercial activities in competition with other commercial businesses." Id. at 573.

The District Court further ruled that the associates who worked in these businesses were "employees" of the Alamos and of the Foundation within the meaning of the Act. The associates who had testified at trial had vigorously protested the payment of wages, asserting that they considered themselves volunteers who were working only for religious and evangelical reasons. Nevertheless, the District Court found that the associates were "entirely dependent upon the Foundation for long periods." Although they did not expect compensation in the form of ordinary wages, the District Court found, they did expect the Foundation to provide them "food, shelter, clothing, transportation and medical benefits." Id. at 562. These benefits were simply wages in another form, and, under the "economic reality" test of employment, see Goldberg v. Whitaker House Cooperative, Inc., 366 U.S. 28,

Page 294

33 (1961),5 the associates were employees. The District Court also rejected petitioners' arguments that application of the Act to the Foundation violated the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment, and the court found no evidence that the Secretary had engaged in unconstitutional discrimination against petitioners in bringing this suit.6

The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the District Court's holding [105 S.Ct. 1958] as to liability, but vacated and remanded as to the appropriate remedy. 722 F.2d 397 (1984).7 The Court of Appeals emphasized that the businesses operated by the Foundation serve the general public, in competition with other entrepreneurs. Under the "economic reality" test, the court held,

it would be difficult to conclude that the extensive commercial enterprise operated and controlled by the foundation was nothing but a religious liturgy engaged in bringing good news to a pagan world. By entering the economic arena and trafficking in the marketplace, the foundation has subjected itself to the standards Congress has prescribed for the benefit of employees. The

Page 295

requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act apply to its laborers.

Id. at 400. Like the District Court, the Court of Appeals also rejected petitioners' constitutional claims. We granted certiorari, 469 U.S. 915 (1984), and now affirm.

II

In order for the Foundation's commercial activities to be subject to the Fair Labor Standards Act, two conditions must be satisfied. First, the Foundation's businesses must constitute an "[e]nterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce." 29 U.S.C. § 203(s).8 Second, the associates must be "employees" within the meaning of the Act. While the statutory definition is exceedingly broad, see United States v. Rosenwasser, 323 U.S. 360, 362-363 (1945), it does have its limits. An individual who,

without promise or expectation of compensation, but solely for his personal purpose or pleasure, worked in activities carried on by other persons either for their pleasure or profit,

is outside...

To continue reading

Request your trial
639 practice notes
  • Increasing the Minimum Wage for Federal Contractors
    • United States
    • The Secretary Of Labor Office
    • Invalid date
    ...of minimum wage and back wages, cannot be waived or abridged by contract. See, e.g., Tony & Susan Alamo Found. v. Sec'y of Labor, 471 U.S. 290, 302 (1985); Barrentine v. Arkansas-Best Freight Sys., Inc., 450 U.S. 728, 740 (1981); D.A. Schulte, Inc. v. Gangi, 328 U.S. 108, 112-16 (1946);......
  • Establishing Paid Sick Leave for Federal Contractors
    • United States
    • Federal Register February 25, 2016
    • February 25, 2016
    ...wage and back wages, cannot be waived or abridged by contract. 79 FR 60667 (citing Tony & Susan Alamo Found. v. Sec'y of Labor, 471 U.S. 290, 302 (1985); Barrentine v. Arkansas-Best Freight Sys., Inc., 450 U.S. 728, 740 (1981); D.A. Schulte, Inc. v. Gangi, 328 U.S. 108, 112-16 (1946); B......
  • Establishing Paid Sick Leave for Federal Contractors
    • United States
    • Federal Register September 30, 2016
    • September 30, 2016
    ...wage and back wages, cannot be waived or abridged by contract. 79 FR 60667 (citing Tony & Susan Alamo Found. v. Sec'y of Labor, 471 U.S. 290, 302 (1985); Barrentine v. Arkansas-Best Freight Sys., Inc., 450 U.S. 728, 740 (1981); D.A. Schulte, Inc. v. Gangi, 328 U.S. 108, 112-16 (1946); B......
  • Establishing a Minimum Wage for Contractors
    • United States
    • Federal Register June 17, 2014
    • June 17, 2014
    ...of minimum wage and back wages, cannot be waived or abridged by contract. See, e.g., Tony & Susan Alamo Found. v. Sec'y of Labor, 471 U.S. 290, 302 (1985); Barrentine v. Arkansas-Best Freight Sys., Inc., 450 U.S. 728, 740 (1981); D.A. Schulte, Inc. v. Gangi, 328 U.S. 108, 112-16 (1946);......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 cases
  • Seattle Opera Association, (2000)
    • United States
    • May 3, 2000
    ...no contention or evidence that the lack of compensation violated the Fair Labor Standards Act. (FLSA). In Tony and Susan Alamo Foundation, 471 U.S. 290 (1985), a case arising under the FLSA, a religious institution engaged in multiple, clearly commercial enterprises. Its labor was provided ......
  • Seattle Opera Association, (2000)
    • United States
    • August 24, 2000
    ...Analysis Relying on WBAI Pacifica Foundation, 328 NLRB 1273 (1999), and Tony & Susan Alamo Foundation v. Secretary of Labor, 471 U.S. 290 (1985), the Regional Director found that auxiliary choristers are not statutory employees, but are volunteers, based on the absence of a sufficient e......
  • Managers of the Boston Port and Seamen's Aide Society, (2003)
    • United States
    • July 3, 2003
    ...at 1275, fn. 3, and Seattle Opera Association, supra at 1074, fn. 4, citing Tony & Susan Alamo Foundation v. Secretary of Labor, 471 U.S. 290 (1985). 21 285 NLRB 530, 542 (1987). 22 234 NLRB 791, 795-796 (1978). 23 222 NLRB 555, 557 (1976). 5 The appropriate unit Background As noted abo......
  • WBAI Pacifica Foundation, (1999)
    • United States
    • August 26, 1999
    ...Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Sections 206(b), 207(a), 211(c), 215(a)(2), (a)(5). Cf. Tony & Susan Alamo Foundation v. Sec’y of Labor, 471 U.S. 290 (1985). (Associates who worked for commercial enterprises of religious foundation and received benefits such as food, clothing and shelter in ex......
8 firm's commentaries
  • Employers Need Not Fear Properly-Designed Internship Programs
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • April 16, 2015
    ...in activities carried on by other persons either for their pleasure or profit" (Tony and Susan Alamo Foundation v. Sec'y of Labor, 471 U.S. 290, 295 (1985); Walling v. Portland Terminal Co., 330 U.S. 148, 152 True interns are not "employees" Based on the foregoing principles,......
  • Magistrate Judge Rules Brooklyn Church Not an FLSA “Enterprise”
    • United States
    • LexBlog United States
    • March 10, 2010
    ...86 F. Supp. 2d 280 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (as well as the Supreme Court’s decision in Tony & Susan Alamo Foundation v. Secretary of Labor, 471 U.S. 290 (1985)), the court ruled that “The undisputed facts show that St. Augustine’s does not perform rental activity as a ‘business operation on the......
  • The DOL's Final Overtime Rule: Survival Strategies For Nonprofit Organizations
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • May 24, 2016
    ...commercial enterprises" do not typically qualify as enterprises under the FLSA. See Tony & Susan Alamo Found. v. Sec'y of Labor, 471 U.S. 290, 297-99 Certain categories of entities, however, are specifically identified as covered enterprises under the FLSA without regard to the amo......
  • 7th Circuit Clarifies Application of Ministerial Exception Doctrine
    • United States
    • LexBlog United States
    • August 9, 2019
    ...is a minister. That is not fanciful—it is what one religious group did assert in Tony & Susan Alamo Foundation v. Secretary of Labor, 471 U.S. 290 (1985)…. The answer lies in separating pretextual justifications from honest ones…. Once the defendant raises a justification for an adverse......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
55 books & journal articles
  • Employment-related crimes.
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review Vol. 35 Nbr. 3, March 1998
    • March 22, 1998
    ...compensation who may work for their own advantage on the premises of another. See Tony & Susan Alamo Found. v. Secretary of Labor, 471 U.S. 290, 295 (1985) (categorizing "associates" who worked for a religious foundation and expected to receive benefits in kind for their work ......
  • Revisiting Smith: Stare Decisis and Free Exercise Doctrine.
    • United States
    • Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy Vol. 44 Nbr. 2, March 2021
    • March 22, 2021
    ...260 (1982). (121.) See Cox v. New Hampshire, 312 U.S. 569, 573-75 (1941). (122.) See Tony & Susan Alamo Found, v. Sec'y of Labor, 471 U.S. 290, 304-05 (1985) (concluding that the challenged Act did not interfere with the claimant's religious exercise rights); Prince v. Massachusetts, 32......
  • Employment-related crimes.
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review Vol. 36 Nbr. 3, June 1999
    • June 22, 1999
    ...compensation who may work for their own advantage on the premises of another. See Tony & Susan Alamo Found. v. Secretary of Labor, 471 U.S. 290, 295 (1985) (categorizing "associates" who worked for religious foundation and expected to receive benefits in kind for their work as......
  • Employment-related crimes.
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review Vol. 37 Nbr. 2, March 2000
    • March 22, 2000
    ...on their degree of authority to act as employers), aff'd, 52 F.3d 316 (3d Cir. 1995). (150.) See Alamo Found. v. Secretary of Labor, 471 U.S. 290, 295 n.8 (1985) (stating that the FLSA applies to either "individual" or "enterprise" coverage). (151.) 29 U.S.C. [sections] ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
11 provisions
  • Increasing the Minimum Wage for Federal Contractors
    • United States
    • Labor Department,The Secretary Of Labor Office
    • Invalid date
    ...of minimum wage and back wages, cannot be waived or abridged by contract. See, e.g., Tony & Susan Alamo Found. v. Sec'y of Labor, 471 U.S. 290, 302 (1985); Barrentine v. Arkansas-Best Freight Sys., Inc., 450 U.S. 728, 740 (1981); D.A. Schulte, Inc. v. Gangi, 328 U.S. 108, 112-16 (1946);......
  • Increasing the Minimum Wage for Federal Contractors
    • United States
    • The Secretary Of Labor Office
    • Invalid date
    ...of minimum wage and back wages, cannot be waived or abridged by contract. See, e.g., Tony & Susan Alamo Found. v. Sec'y of Labor, 471 U.S. 290, 302 (1985); Barrentine v. Arkansas-Best Freight Sys., Inc., 450 U.S. 728, 740 (1981); D.A. Schulte, Inc. v. Gangi, 328 U.S. 108, 112-16 (1946);......
  • Establishing Paid Sick Leave for Federal Contractors
    • United States
    • Federal Register February 25, 2016
    • February 25, 2016
    ...wage and back wages, cannot be waived or abridged by contract. 79 FR 60667 (citing Tony & Susan Alamo Found. v. Sec'y of Labor, 471 U.S. 290, 302 (1985); Barrentine v. Arkansas-Best Freight Sys., Inc., 450 U.S. 728, 740 (1981); D.A. Schulte, Inc. v. Gangi, 328 U.S. 108, 112-16 (1946); B......
  • Establishing Paid Sick Leave for Federal Contractors
    • United States
    • Federal Register September 30, 2016
    • September 30, 2016
    ...wage and back wages, cannot be waived or abridged by contract. 79 FR 60667 (citing Tony & Susan Alamo Found. v. Sec'y of Labor, 471 U.S. 290, 302 (1985); Barrentine v. Arkansas-Best Freight Sys., Inc., 450 U.S. 728, 740 (1981); D.A. Schulte, Inc. v. Gangi, 328 U.S. 108, 112-16 (1946); B......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT