Neff v. Civil Air Patrol

• Decision Date: 25 January 1996
• Docket Number: No. C-2-92-0472.,C-2-92-0472.
• Parties: Michelle P. NEFF, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL AIR PATROL, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio

916 F. Supp. 710

Michelle P. NEFF, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL AIR PATROL, Defendant.

No. C-2-92-0472.

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division.

January 25, 1996.

Robert Paul DiRosario, Columbus, OH, for plaintiff.

John G Salmon, Brown, Bartuwek & Worthing, Cleveland, OH, Robert M Karton, Chicago, IL, Gregory L Williamson, Brown Vartuner & Worthing, Cleveland, OH, for defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER

KINNEARY, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on the Court's motion under Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b) to reconsider its prior ruling that Plaintiff Michelle Neff ("Neff") met her summary judgment burden to show that she was an employee of the Civil Air Patrol ("CAP") entitled to the protection of Title VII.¹ The Court informed the parties of its intention to revisit this question in its Order of October 30, 1995, and requested that the parties submit evidence on this issue. Based upon this evidence, the Court VACATES the resolution it reached in its Opinion and Order dated October 26, 1995 concerning the employee status of Neff and now finds that she is not an employee within the jurisdiction or protection of Title VII.

I.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its subsequent amendments were enacted to remedy discrimination in various sectors of American life. Title VII is the specific portion of that Act designed to "rid the world of work of the evil of discrimination because of an individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." Armbruster v. Quinn, 711 F.2d 1332, 1340 (6th Cir.1983) (emphasis added). The limited goal of Title VII is apparent in its jurisdictional requirement: a plaintiff under Title VII must be an "employee." 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(f); see also 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b)(2) (private membership club exclusion); Leda E. Dunn, Note, Protection of Volunteers under the Federal Employment Law: Discouraging Voluntarism?, 61 Fordham L.Rev. 451, 459 and n. 73 (1992).

In order to determine whether a person is an "employee" and therefore a proper plaintiff under Title VII, the Sixth Circuit considers whether the "economic realities" of a situation make the putative employee "susceptible to the kind of unlawful practices that Title VII was intended to remedy." Armbruster, 711 F.2d at 1342. Thus, "employee" status depends in large part upon the degree to which an individual is economically dependent upon the institution charged with discrimination. Lilley v. BTM Corp., 958 F.2d 746, 750 (6th Cir.1992). Evidence of economic dependence can arise from the hiring and termination processes of the putative employer, the method of compensation, and the opportunities for advancement in the organization or elsewhere as a result of affiliation with the organization. Armbruster, 711 F.2d at 1342 n. 9.

A.

The present case falls into the discrete line where a putative employee does not receive a paycheck or other direct compensation from the purported employer. Ordinarily, unpaid volunteers, whose livelihood does not depend upon their volunteer position, are not susceptible to the same types of economic pressures as are paid employees. See Smith v. Berks Community Television, 657 F.Supp. 794, 795 (E.D.Pa.1987). It is not surprising, therefore, that this Court's research has turned up only one case — Haavistola v. Community Fire Co. of Rising Sun, 6 F.3d 211 (4th Cir.1993) — where a federal court has found that a person who did not receive a paycheck could be a Title VII "employee." In Haavistola, the Fourth Circuit, using a test that combined "economic realities" with modified agency principles, held that Paula Haavistola, a volunteer firefighter, presented enough evidence to survive summary judgment on the issue of employee status. Haavistola was not paid by her local volunteer firefighting company, but by statute she received survivors' benefits for her dependents, group life insurance, tuition reimbursement, coverage under Maryland's Workers' Compensation Act, access to the only practical route to paramedic certification, and other benefits. Haavistola, 6 F.3d at 221. These benefits, combined with evidence indicating that the Rising Sun fire company controlled Haavistola's duties and therefore her chances of advancement, were enough for the Fourth Circuit to find that Haavistola created an issue of material fact. The jury empaneled on remand, however, needed less than two hours to conclude that Haavistola was not an "employee" within the definition of Title VII (and that fire companies were not state actors under § 1983). Haavistola, 839 F.Supp. 372 (D.Md.1994).

With the exception of the appellate Haavistola opinion, every case discovered by this Court concludes that unpaid volunteers are not employees within the protection of Title VII. Some guiding principles emerge from these existing decisions. First, the prestige or good will created by a voluntary position does not transform that position into a position of employment. Tadros v. Coleman, 717 F.Supp. 996, 1005 (S.D.N.Y.1989) (prestige of voluntary hospital staff appointment not compensation), aff'd 898 F.2d 10 (2d Cir.); Schoenbaum v. Orange County Center for the Performing Arts, 677 F.Supp. 1036 (C.D.Cal.1987) (under ADEA). Second, minor benefits associated with a volunteer position do not constitute compensation, particularly when those benefits are not related to career opportunities. Hall v. Delaware Council on Crime and Justice, 780 F.Supp. 241, 244 (D.Del.1992) (free lunch, reimbursement for expenses, and other minor compensation), aff'd 975 F.2d 1549 (3d Cir.1992) (table). Third, even benefits that create career opportunities are not always compensation. Graves v. Women's Professional Rodeo Ass'n, 907 F.2d 71, 72 (8th Cir.1990) (championship titles and other nonremunerative awards do not create employee status without a duty to the purported employer); Tadros, 717 F.Supp. at 1005-06 (hospital office and library privileges, though prestigious, not employment without official duties and payment); Beverley v. Douglas, 591 F.Supp. 1321 (S.D.N.Y.1984) (same). Fourth, professional associations of similarly minded people are not employers, even if certain benefits are involved, as long as outsiders can earn the same benefits without membership. See Graves, 907 F.2d 71, 73 (8th Cir.1990) (membership in WPRA not employment relationship because non-members could compete for the same prizes). Stated more broadly, Title VII will not protect volunteers who are not working "in expectation of compensation." Tony & Susan Alamo Foundation v. Secretary of Labor, 471 U.S. 290, 302, 105 S.Ct. 1953, 1962, 85 L.Ed.2d 278 (1985) (discussing analogous provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act). Upon review of these principles, this Court concludes that, even with all reasonable inferences drawn in her favor, Neff has not produced evidence that could lead a reasonable juror to conclude that she worked in expectation of compensation. She cannot be considered an employee.

B.

Neff alleges that she received three basic forms of compensation from CAP, the combination of which made her an "employee."² First, she says that she received emotional benefit both from knowing that she was helping others and from her increased self-confidence. Neff describes these benefits as "ability to ... meet new people," "self-improvement," "challenge of assisting people in need," "improvement in all aspects of a member's ... life," "self-esteem," and "satisfaction of assisting in the saving of lives." (Doc. # 74.) Even if these benefits are all present, however, they do not forward Neff's case under the economic realities test; indeed, to the extent that they are relevant to the present litigation at all, they indicate that Neff joined CAP for voluntary and charitable reasons unrelated to any potential financial benefits. The fact that Neff maintained a career (or several careers) apart from CAP further supports this conclusion. (Neff Trans. at 7-12.)

Second, Neff alleges that she received various in-kind services that helped her fulfill her role in CAP. Among these benefits, Neff first asserts that she received an annual "Form 5" ride. (Neff Trans. at 149.) "Form 5" rides, which last about an hour and a half, are used by CAP to ensure that its volunteers are competent to conduct the aerial maneuvers necessary for CAP's search-and-rescue missions and are a necessary prerequisite for volunteer pilots. (Doc. # 76, Exh. M, N; Civil Air Patrol Manual § 60-1, ¶¶ 3-3, 3-7; § 50-15, ¶ 2-9.) The rides are not always free to the volunteer; Neff admits that she paid for one, including the fee for the "check airman." (Neff Trans. at 150-51.) Neff similarly asserts that she received discounted flying time, but concedes that any "discounted" flight time she received was for CAP-approved "proficiency training" to help its pilots maintain their flying abilities. (Neff.Trans. at 145-49; see also Civil Air Patrol Manual § 60-1, ¶ 3-4 and Attach. 12-2.) Moreover, the "discounts" were not discounts at all, but instead constituted a fee designed to cover the maintenance costs of the plane excluding fuel, which was the sole responsibility of the pilot. (Neff Trans. at 34-35, 38, 58-59, 146; see also Doc. # 76, Exh. U.)³ Neff also submits proof of various educational opportunities she received through CAP, including CAP's corporate leadership course, CAP's chaplain course, and a scanner/observer training session. (Neff Trans. at 152, 54, 57; Doc. # 76, Exh. D, K.)⁴ Neff further estimates the cost of these courses if taken through private institutions. (Neff Trans. at 154-59.) Neff does not relate a reason why she took these courses.

Taking all of Neff's assertions about in-kind services as true, Neff has not fulfilled her burden on summary judgment; in particular, Neff failed to adduce proof as to how the economic realities of these services made her dependent upon her position with CAP or made her an employee. Neff does not assert, for example, that the Form 5 training flights, the proficiency...