1. Memorandum
To: Wayne Schiess
From: 2089
Words:6036
QuestionPresented
Federal cases have differentiated between employees and trainees and exempted trainees from
FLSA minimum wage requirements. A worker qualifies as a trainee if without the promise of future
paid employment, he or she agreed to participate in an uncompensated, educational program, for
their ownbenefit, without providing a substantive benefit to an employer or displacing an
employee. Dorthea Faulk participated in an unpaid internship and seeks compensation for her
work. Can Dorthea qualify as an employee for the purposes of recovering lost wages?
Answer
Probably not. Under Federal commonlaw, Dorthea Faulk has likely satisfied all the elements that
are necessary to be considered a trainee. Mrs. Faulk agreed to participate in an unpaid internship
program at Raekel and Sander and was never promised future paid employment at the firm. The
internship was educational in nature and created with the purpose of preparing interns fora career
as a legal professional. Mrs. Faulk gained a benefit from the program by learning and acquiring new
skills and experiences she did not previously have. She probably did not displace a paid employee
at Raekel and Sander and was sufficiently supervised by her superiors, who werealways in close
proximity to her and allowed her only a minimal amount of autonomy to complete assignments.
Her employers gained little benefit from Mrs. Faulk’s work,whichwas simple and undemanding in
nature, and were oftenimpeded by the time and effortrequired to supervise and help her.
Therefore, Mrs. Faulk willmost likely qualify as a trainee of Raekel and Sander and will not be able
to recoverwages under the FLSA minimum wage requirements statute.
Statement of Facts
Our client, Dorthea Faulk comes to us now to help settle a wage dispute between herself and her
former employers. Mrs. Faulk was hired as an unpaid summer intern at Raekel and Sander, after
she discovered a flyeradvertising the internship. The flyerpromised applicants exposure to “the
‘Nuts & Bolts’ of [l]itigation [t]hey [d]on’t [t]each in [l]aw [s]chool” and also promised to teach
interns “how a law practice works.” As a law student, Mrs. Faulk was eager to work as an intern
and hoped “to learn what[a] real law practice is like . . . [and] learn what lawyers actually do.”
Mrs. Faulk knew that she would not receive wages for the internship. Mrs. Faulk has also
acknowledged in her deposition that she was never promised paid employment at Raekel and
Sander, upon the completion of her internship.
There are no documented instances of Mrs. Faulk being left alone for an extended period of time.
By all accounts, she was alwaysin close proximity to her supervisors.

2. Mrs. Faulk was the first unpaid intern hired at Raekel and Sander. Before the internship program,
Raekel and Sander hired law students as paid clerks. In his deposition, ScottEspinosa, Mrs. Faulk’s
supervisor, stated that the hired clerks provided little intrinsic value and that the internship was
created to shift the emphasis towards better training of inexperienced law students.
Mrs. Faulk complains that her internship treated her like “a secretary or paralegal” and believes
that the internship had little educational merit and taught her little about the legal profession. Mrs.
Faulk has admitted to receiving minor benefit from her internship and stated that sitting in on her
first court hearing “was a good experience”; however, she found the overall experience to be
disappointing. Mrs. Faulk feltthat she was unable to apply the knowledge she had acquired in law
school and believes that the internship should have been more focused on teaching legal strategies.
Mr. Espinosa’s statements counter Mrs. Faulk’s assertions. He claimed that the internship was a
learning experience for Mrs. Faulk and that she will be “more useful to an employer the next time
around” when she searches for a job.
In his deposition, Mr. Espinosa states that Raekel and Sander gained little economic benefit from
hiring Mrs. Faulk and that it is difficultto calculatea benefit in economic savings fromhiring an
unpaid intern instead of a paid clerk. He goes on to state that Mrs. Faulk cost the firm money and
that any time spent supervising, overviewing, or training Mrs. Faulk was time that the "firm had to
eat.” According to Mr. Espinosa, Mrs. Faulk presence impeded the normal operation of the firm and
tookother employees away fromtheir work.
Raekel and Sander employment rosters remained consistent throughout Mrs. Faulk’s internship.
When questioned about company layoffs,Mrs. Faulk stated in her deposition that she was not
aware of any layoffsoccurringduring her internship.
Mrs. Faulk states that she mainly performed “administrative tasks like, checking dockets, updating
calendars, and sorting and organizing discovery documents.” Mrs. Faulk was taught how to
perform these tasks by Gabrielle Roldan and Thomas Schroeder, but she states that neither Mrs.
Roldan or Mr. Schroeder spent more than “20 minutes the entire summer” training her. In his
deposition, Mr. Espinosa states that both Mrs. Roldan and Mr. Schroeder in all likelihood had to take
time away from their own workto not only train Mrs. Faulk, but to supervise and oversee her work
as well.
At one point, Mrs. Faulk was asked to draft a motion to compel discovery. In her deposition, Mrs.
Faulk characterizes the task as simple and states that she only had to “change the names and
change the dates” on an existing memo. Mrs. Faulk acknowledges that Mr. Espinosa did help her
draft the motion, but felt that the guidance was limited. Mr. Espinosa contends that his guidance
was required in order to prevent Mrs. Faulk from “making a mistake that harmed a client’s case.”
Mrs. Faulk was allowed tosit in on a client meeting. Afterward,Mr. Espinosa asked Mrs. Faulk to
draft a letter that detailed what happened in the meeting. Mrs. Faulk turned the letter into Mr.
Espinosa, whothen submitted it to a representative at an insurance company. When questioned
about the letter in his deposition, Mr. Espinosa stated that he would have drafted and sent a letter
himself, if Mrs. Faulk had been unavailable.
During the course of Mrs. Faulk’s internship, Mrs. Faulk drafted two memos forher supervisors
Scott Espinosa and Debbie Sanders. Mr. Espinosa personally assigned the first memo to Mrs. Faulk
and laid out the details of what he was expecting from the memo in a meeting with Mrs. Faulk. Mrs.

3. Sanders sent an email to Mrs. Faulk detailing her expectations forthe second memo. In her
deposition, Mrs. Faulk states that she was dissatisfied with the lack of guidance she received on
both memo assignments and stated that she did not receivefeedback from either supervisor. She
also believes that her memos were used by both Mr. Espinosa and Mrs. Sander. This belief is
contradicted by Mr. Espinosa’s deposition. Mr. Espinosa states that he received little use from the
memo and that in general it is hard to make use of “legal memos prepared by novices.” He also
stated that he had to review Mrs. Faulk’s memo carefully and make sure the judgments she made
were correct. He goes on to state that he receiveda small benefit from the memo’s research leads.
Discussion
It is unlikely that Dorthea Faulk will be able to receivecompensation for the hours she worked as
an intern under the FLSA minimum wage requirements. In order to be subject to the minimum
wage statute, Mrs. Faulk must have been an employee of Raekel and Sanders. It is more likely that
Mrs. Faulk willqualify as a trainee instead of an employee. As a result, Mrs. Faulk will probably lose
her case if it goes before a judge or jury.
Under federal statute, an “employee” is defined as “any individual employed by an employer,”
where “employed” means to “sufferand permit work.” 29 U.S.C.A. § 203(e)(1),(g)(West2013).
Based on these twodefinitions, the Supreme Court determined that the FLSA was “not intended to
stamp all persons as employees who,without any . . . compensation agreement, might workfor
their ownadvantage on the premises of another.” Walling v. PortlandTerminalCo.,330 U.S. 148,
151 (1947). The Supreme Court made a distinction between “employees” and “trainees” and
determined that workers whoqualified as “trainees” werenot subject to the FLSA minimum wage
requirements. Id. at 152.
Based on the various criteria the Supreme Court provided in Wallingto differentiate trainees and
employees, three tests have been developed to determine if an unpaid intern is a trainee or an
employee: The economic realities test, the primary benefits test, and The Department of Labor’s
Administrator’s Test.
The economic realities test states that, in order to determine if an unpaid intern is an employee or a
trainee, the “economic realities” of the intern’s employment must be taken into consideration and a
determination must be made on whether the intern’s employer economically benefitted from the
intern’s work. Kaplanv. CodeBlueBilling & Consulting,Inc.,2012 WL8969063, at *4 (S.D. Fla. Mar.
12, 2012)(Kaplan1), aff'dsub nom,Kaplanv. CodeBlueBilling & Coding,Inc., 504 F. App'x 831 (11th
Cir. 2013), cert. deniedsubnom, Kaplanv. CodeBlueBilling& Coding,Inc., 134 S. Ct. 618 (2013). If
the employer did not economically benefit froman intern’s work,then the intern will qualify as a
trainee under the economic realities test. Id.at *4.
In contrast, the primary benefits test analyzes whether an intern benefitted more from their work
than their employer did. Demayo v.Palms W. Hosp.,Ltd.P'ship,918 F. Supp. 2d 1287, 1291 (S.D.Fla.
2013)(citing Solisv. LaurelbrookSanitarium&Sch., Inc., 642 F.3d 518 (6th Cir. 2011)). The
benefits an intern provides to an employer are typically economic in nature, but the primary
benefits test differs from the economic realities test by looking at what non-economic benefits were
received by the unpaid intern. Id. at 1291. If it can be determined that the intern benefitted from

4. their workand that their employer receivedcomparatively little benefit, then the intern will qualify
as a trainee. Id. at 1291.
Finally, the Department of Labor’s six-prong Administrator’s Test incorporates the elements of both
the economic realities test and the primary benefits test as well as additional elements in
determining whether or not an intern is a trainee. Id.at 1290. Of the three test, the Administrator’s
Test is the narrowest; and satisfying all six-prongs of the Administrator’s Test willsatisfy both the
economic realities test and the primary benefits test. Id. at 1290. The test is also used extensively
throughout the Florida district courts,Id. at 1287, and has been used by the Eleventh Circuit Court
of Appeals. Kaplanv. CodeBlueBilling & Coding,Inc.,504 F. App'x at 831, 831 (11th Cir.
2013)(Kaplan2). For these reason, the primary tool forthe analysis willbe the Administrator’s
Test. All six elements of the Administrator’s Test were derived from criteria dictated by the
Supreme Court in the Wallingdecision to distinguish trainees fromemployees. Griffiths v. Parker,
2014 WL2095205 at *4 (S.D. Fla. May 20, 2014). If all six elements of the test are applicable to an
intern, then the intern qualifies as a trainee under the test. Id.at *4. The intern has the burden of
disproving at least one of the six elements in order to qualify as an employee. Id. at *4. The six
elements are as follows: “(1) the training, even though it includes actual operation of the facilities
of the employer, is similar to that . . . given in a vocationalschool; (2) the training is forthe benefit
of the trainees; (3) the trainees do not displace regular employees, but work under close
supervision; (4)the employer . . . derives no immediate advantage fromthe activities . . . and on
occasions his operation may be impeded; (5) the trainees are not . . . entitled to a job at the
completion of the training period; (6)the employer and the trainees understand that the trainees
are not entitled to wages for the time spent in training.” Id. at *4. While the Administrator’s Test is
not binding authority on the courts, it does “constitutea body of experience and informed judgment
to whichcourts and litigants may properly resort forguidance.” Kaplan,504 F. App'x at 834-
35(Kaplan2) (quoting DadeCnty.v. Alvaret,124 F .3d 1380, 1385 (11th Cir. 1997) (citing Skidmore
v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134 (1944))). As a worker,Dorthea Faulk likely meets all six elements of the
Administrator’s Test and will likely qualify as a “trainee” of Raekel and Sanders under the
Administrator’s Test, economic realities test, and the primary benefits test.
A.DortheaFaulk’sassignedtasksweresimilarto thetrainingprovided ata vocational
schools.
In order to disprove the first element of the Administrator’s test, an intern must show that the work
load and assigned tasks he or she was given fell “outside [of the] educational experience” of the
internship program. Demayo,918F. Supp. 2d at 1292. The intern must demonstrate that the work
load did not advance the central educational purpose of the internship; otherwise the first element
is satisfied. Id.at 1292. The plaintiff in Demayo made the argument that some of the tasks they
performed “such as stocking instruments and supplies, organizing files, and taking out the garbage,”
were not within the scope of expected tasks that a extern would perform; howeverthe court ruled
that the tasks had educational merit and advanced the primary purpose of the program by
preparing the plaintiff fora career as a surgical technologist. Id. at 1292. While the tasks were
menial, they were tasks that surgical technologist must perform and were deemed to be within the
scope of the externship. Id.at 1292. Similarly, the plaintiff in O’Neill argued that the workshe
performed “provided no useful vocationaltraining” because she performed tasks that she had
learned in her studies before the start of the internship. O'Neillv. E. FloridaEyeInst.,P.A., 2012 WL
8969062, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 17, 2012). The court rejected this argument because the central

5. purpose of the internship was to apply whatthe plaintiff had learned in schoolto a real world
setting. Id. at *2.
In the present case, the tasks that Dorthea Faulk completed for Raekel and Sander were similar to
the training received froma vocationalschool and within the educational experience that would be
expected froma legal internship. Similar to the analysis performed in the O’Neill case,“the central
purpose of [the] internship,” O'Neill,2012 WL 8969062, at *2, must be determined in order to
establish if Mrs. Faulk’s internship went outside of its intended educational purpose. The flier for
the internship states that the purpose of the internship is to expose interns to “the ‘Nuts & Bolts’ of
[l]itigation [t]hey [d]on’t [t]each in [l]aw [s]chool” and to teach “how a law practice works.” Like
the “stocking [of] instruments and supplies,” Demayo,918 F. Supp. 2d, at 1292, in Demayo,the
menial tasks that Mrs. Faulk performed had educational merit and were tasks that are performed
by lawyersand advanced the primary purpose of the internship. The tasks that Dorthea Faulk
performed never went beyondthe scope the internship’s educational purpose and the first element
of the Administrator’s test is satisfied.
Mrs. Faulk complains in her deposition that her internship had no educational merits because she
did not get the opportunity to apply her law school experience as she intended. Accordingto Mrs.
Faulk, she performed tasks that she would associate with “a secretary or a paralegal” and should
therefore be regarded as an employee. This counter is baseless. The purpose of Mrs. Faulk’s
internship was to expose her to aspects of a law practice that are not taught in law school. Mrs.
Faulk has not presented any instance of her internship that went outside of its intended educational
purpose and willnot be able todisprove the first element.
B.DortheaFaulk’sworkedatRaekel andSanderforherownpersonal purposeandthe
trainingshereceivedtherewas most likelyofbenefitto herself.
The second element of the Administrator’s Test is satisfied by showing that an intern intended to
work“forhis [or her] ownadvantage or personal purpose” and that a benefit was gained by the
intern. Walling, 330 U.S. 148, 151. The primary benefits test uses this element as well in order to
establish whether the intern or the employer received the greater benefit from the internship
program. Solis,642 F.3d 518, 529. When the second element is applicable to an intern, the primary
benefits test gives the element greater weight than the Administrator’s Test in determining
whether an intern is a trainee or an employee. Id.at 529.
The Supreme Court concluded that the plaintiff in Wallingreceived a benefit fromthe training he
underwent whileworking as an unpaid worker. Walling, 330 U.S. 148 at 151. The training
prepared the plaintiff for a paid job as a railroad brakeman. Without the training, the plaintiff
would not be able to qualify as a brakeman. Id. at 151. Since the plaintiff received a direct benefit
from the training and he was advancing his ownpersonal goal of employment as a brakeman, the
Supreme Court ruled that the plaintiff was a trainee of the defendant and not an employee. Id at
151
A judge will not determine if an intern qualifies as an employee or trainee, if a determination cannot
first be made on whether the intern benefitted fromtheir own work. Griffiths, 2014 WL 2095205,
at *5. The defendant in Griffiths claimed that the workhe provided was helping the plaintiff to
“acquire a certificationor degree in paralegal studies.” Id at *5. The plaintiff denied this claim and

6. stated that she never enrolled in a program to obtain a paralegal certification. Id at *5.
Additionally, it was disputed if the workprovided by the defendant would benefit the plaintiff in
acquiring a paralegal certification. Idat *5. Rather than developing the plaintiff’s skills through a
demanding work load, there was evidence that the defendant “took. . . responsibility away from”
the plaintiff during difficulttasks as opposed to “persist[ing] with [her] training.” Id at *5. The
court ruled that the differing testimony of the plaintiff and defendant was an issue of material fact
and that a jury should determine whether the plaintiff benefitted from her internship. Id at *5.
In this case, Mrs. Faulk pursued her ownpurpose as an intern at Raekel and Sander and likely
received a benefit fromher work. As a result, the second element of The Administrator’s Test is
likely satisfied. In her deposition, Mrs. Faulk was questioned on what benefits she hoped to gain
through her workat Raekel and Sander. She stated that she wanted “to learn what real law practice
is like . . . [and] learn what lawyers actually do.” As a law student, Mrs. Faulk was trying to get an
understanding for the inner workings of the legal profession in order to prepare herself forwhen
she sought a job as a lawyerin the future. Mrs. Faulk’s was working forher ownpersonal purpose
and future benefit and did not intend to assist Raekel and Sander. Mrs. Faulk also obtained a
benefit from her work. In her owndeposition, Mrs. Faulk acknowledges that she “can’t say [that
she] received absolutely no benefit” from her internship. She admits that attending a court hearing
for the first time “wasa good experience” and has stated that she learned how to “check[]dockets,
update[] calendars, and organiz[e][] discovery documents” during her time as an intern. Mrs. Faulk
gained experience that she otherwise wouldnot have had. This experience, accordingto Scott
Espinosa, willmake Mrs. Faulk “more useful to an employer the next time around.” Mrs. Faulk
obtained a benefit from her internship and likely satisfies second element.
Mrs. Faulk can argue that the benefits she received fromher internship are too minimal to satisfy
the second element. Unlike the plaintiff in Demayo,Mrs.Faulk did not receive any college credit or
substantive benefit from her internship. Demayo,918 F. Supp. 2d at 1288 (holding that plaintiff
received a benefit fromsurgical technological program because she received academic credit for
participating in the program). Mrs. Faulk could contend that there is no guarantee that the
experience she received fromher internship will help her find a job in the future. This argument is
flawed. Evidenceof substantial benefit is not a requirement forsatisfying the second element. In
Walling,the plaintiff had no guarantee that he wouldbe hired as a brakeman at the completion of
his training. Walling, 330 U.S. at 149. Had the plaintiff not been hired by the railroad, his training
as a brakeman would amount to little. Id.at 149. The Supreme Court held that the training and
experience gained was itself a benefit and that a more substantive benefit did not have to be shown.
Id. at 153. The only reason the court in Griffiths refused to declare that the plaintiff had benefitted
from her internship was because there was a genuine issue of fact on whether the plaintiff received
any benefit. Griffiths, 2014 WL 2095205, at *5. There is no such issue of facthere. Mrs. Faulk
benefitted fromher internship. The benefit she received willprobably satisfy the second element.
C.DortheaFaulk mostlikelydidnot displaceregularemployeesandwassufficiently
supervised.
The third element of the Administrator’s Test has twofactors, whichboth must be applicable to an
intern in order forthe third element to be satisfied. Kaplan,2012 WL8969063, at *5 (Kaplan1).
First, the employer who sponsored the internship program cannot use interns as a source of free
labor and displace paid employees for their own economic benefit. Id. at 1291. The first factoris

7. applicable to both the economic realities test and primary benefits test and helps to establish both
whether an employer gained an economic benefit from the free labor of an intern, Kaplan,2012 WL
8969063, at *4 (Kaplan1)(Stating that each individual case must be judged on the “economic
realities” of the employment relationship and whether an individual intern’s workeconomically
benefitted an employee) and whether the employer benefitted more from the internship than the
intern. Solis,642 F.3d 518 at 529 (Concluding that displacement of paid employees is a factorto
consider in the primary benefits test).
The second factor requires an intern to be reasonably supervised and to have limited autonomy in
completing assigned work. Demayo,918F. Supp. 2d at 1290. Reasonable supervision is
determined by analyzing an intern’s daily interactions with their supervisors. Id.at 1290. The
second factorhas minimal application in both the economic reality test and the primary benefits
test, but is used by The Administrator’s Test. Id.at 1290-91.
In Schumann, a former employee of the defendant testified that unpaid student anesthetists
(SRNAs) were used to displace paid workers(CRNAs). Schumannv. CollierAnesthesia,P.A.,2014
WL 2158505, at *4 (M.D.Fla. May 23, 2014). The employee testified that she had “instructed . . .
CRNAs to stay home so that SRNAs could workin their place” to avoid paying wages. Id. at *4. This
testimony was rebutted by showing that the employee “was not privy to . . . financial or payroll
information” and that the payroll costs for CRNAs remained consistent despite fluctuations of
SRNAs. Id. at *4. Without a clear economic benefit to the defendant’s payrollcosts, the plaintiff
failed to show that SRNAs displaced CRNAs. Id.at *4. Similarly, the plaintiff in Kaplan1 stated that
she displaced paid workers and performed “tasks that the other [paid workers] . . . were not
[performing].” Kaplan,2012 WL 8969063, at *5 (Kaplan1). The plaintiff’s claim was disproven by
evidence that the plaintiff was not “likely [to] be hired [as a paid worker] because there was no
need for[her].” Id. at *5. The plaintiff failed to prove that she displaced a paid worker,since the
defendant’s current staff absorbed the plaintiff’s duties withoutimpeding the defendant’s
operation. Id.at *5. In contrast, the plaintiff in Griffith presented evidence that the defendant had
ceased to employ hired workers before creating the plaintiff’s internship. Griffiths,2014 WL
2095205, at *5. The absence of former paid help during the plaintiff’s internship was used to
indicate that the plaintiff was performing the tasks of the former paid workerforfree. Id.at *5. The
defendant was able to partially counter this claim by showing that the worker whoimmediately
preceded the plaintiff was also unpaid and that the plaintiff did not add value to his operation
because he was able functionnormally without the plaintiff’s help. Id. at *5. The judge in Griffith
refused to rule on whether the plaintiff displaced an employee and sent the issue to a jury. Id.at *6.
In Kaplan1,information characterizing the plaintiff’s typical work day was used to determine that
the plaintiff was sufficiently supervised. Kaplan,2012 WL 8969063, at *5 (Kaplan1). The plaintiff
workedin close proximity to a supervisor whowas able to answer any question that the plaintiff
had. Id.at *5. The plaintiff also had minimal autonomy when performing her assigned workand all
the “phone call[s] she made and document[s] she sent out” were reviewed and monitored by a
supervisor in order to prevent “issues” from arising due to the “[p]laintiff’s calls.” Id.at *5. The
plaintiff’s close supervision and limited autonomy satisfied the third element of the Administrator’s
Test. Id.at *5. In contrast, the plaintiff in Griffiths was often not within close proximity of her
employer and was left alone when her employer attended court hearings. Griffiths,2014 WL
2095205, at *5. No determination was made on whether the plaintiff was sufficiently supervised.
Id. at *6.

8. Mrs. Faulk willprobably not be able to meet her burden of proof and disprove the third element of
the Administrator’s Test. Like the defendant in O’Neill, whopresented payroll records to show that
an economic benefit could not be shown fromhiring more unpaid workers,Scott Espinosa has
testified that it is difficultto show any evidencethat the firm economically benefitted from hiring an
unpaid intern instead of a paid clerk. There is also no evidence that any workershave been laid off
or paid less because of the free labor source Mrs. Faulk provided. Mrs. Faulk failed to list a single
employee who had been laid off during her internship. Without a presentable immediate economic
benefit, it is not likely that Mrs. Faulk will be able to show that she displaced a paid employee.
Additionally, there is no evidence to suggest that Raekel and Sander’s operation has been affected
by Mrs. Faulk’s absence. Similar to the plaintiff’s future employment opportunities in Kaplan1,
there was no intention to hire Mrs. Faulk as an employee. Mrs. Faulk’s workduties during her
internship have presumably been absorbed by the current staff of Raekel and Sander. Mr. Espinosa
has stated that in Mrs. Faulk’s absence he could write out letters to insurance companies and there
is no evidence to suggest that the other employees of Raekel and Sander are incapable of similarly
absorbing Mrs. Faulk’s other duties. The burden is on Mrs. Faulk to provide evidence that Raekel
and Sander’s operation has been impeded without the benefit of her free labor. If Mrs. Faulk cannot
meet this burden, then it is unlikely that Mrs. Faulk willbe able to prove that she displaced a paid
employee.
During her internship, Mrs. Faulk was properly supervised. Unlike the plaintiff in Griffiths who was
left alone for extended periods of time, Mrs.Faulk workedin close proximity to her supervisors. As
a result, it is in unlikely that the supervision of Mrs. Faulk will come into question like it did forthe
plaintiff in the Griffiths case. Like the plaintiff in Kaplan1, Mrs.Faulk’s autonomy was limited and
her substantive work product was reviewedby her superiors in order to prevent her from“making
a mistake that harmed a client’s case.” Mrs. Faulk contends that her supervision was minimal and
that she received little guidance on assignments; howeversuch assertions were made by the
plaintiff in Kaplan1 as well and the plaintiff was still deemed to be sufficiently supervised due to
the minimal autonomy she was given when completing assignments. Kaplan,2012 WL 8969063, at
*5 (Kaplan1). Mrs. Faulk’s close proximity to her supervisors and limited autonomy establishes
that she was properly supervised.
Mrs. Faulk can disprove the third element if she can demonstrate that her internship program was
used to displace paid workers from Raekel and Sander’s discontinued summer clerkship. Like the
previous employment offeredby the defendant in the Griffiths case, Raekel and Sander previously
hired a paid employee before hiring Mrs. Faulk as an unpaid intern. If Mrs. Faulk can establish that
she performed similar tasks as last year’s paid clerk,then she can argue that she is performing the
workof a paid workerand that she is providing an economic benefit with her free labor. This
would be hard to prove, since immediate economic benefits to Raekel and Sander cannot be
presented. The defendant can also undercut Mrs. Faulk’s claim with an argument like the one made
by the defendant in Griffiths and state that neither the internship program nor clerkship provided a
real value to Raekel and Sander and that the firm’s business is able to run normally withoutinterns
or clerks.
D.Raekel andSanders probablyderivedonlyminimal benefitfromhiringDortheaFaulkand
was impededbyher presence.

9. To disprove the fourth element of the Administrator’s test, an intern has to prove that their
employer benefitted fromtheir workin a substantive way and that they did not interfere with the
operation of the employer’s business. Kaplan,2012 WL 8969063, at *6 (Kaplan1). Small benefits
from the intern’s workwillnot be enough to disprove the fourthelement, especially if the intern’s
presence has a detrimental impact on their employer’s business. Id at *6. Like the third element,
the fourth element of the Administrator’s Test has an application in both the economic realities test,
Kaplan,2012 WL8969063, at *4 (Kaplan1),and the primary benefits test. Solis,642 F.3d at 527.
The fourth element is used by the economic realities test to determine if an employer gained a
monetary benefit from an intern’s work. Kaplan,2012 WL 8969063, at *4. Assuming that the
intern did not displace a paid worker,the economic realities test willclassify an intern as a trainee
if the intern’s work did not provide the employer with a net economic benefit. Id.at *4. The fourth
element along withthe second element of the Administrator’s Test are given special weight by the
primary benefit test. Solis, 642 F.3d at 527. The primary benefits test looksat what an employer
gained by hiring an intern and whether the intern’s workprovided a greater benefit to the
employer than the intern. Id. at 527. If the employer received minimal benefit from the intern’s
workand the workbenefitted the intern more than the employer, then the intern qualifies as a
trainee under the test. Id. at 527.
The plaintiff in O’Neil claimed that her workbenefitted her employer and that she was entitled to
wages. O'Neill,2012 WL8969062, at *3. This claim was rejected because the plaintiff’s presence
impeded the workof her co-workers. Id at *3. In order to properly supervise and review the
plaintiff’s work,the plaintiff’s co-workershad to sacrificetime fromtheir own workduties and
upset the normal operation of the defendant’s business. Id.at *3. The benefit the plaintiff’s work
provided was not enough to offset the hindrance her presence caused. Id. at *3. The plaintiff in
O’Neill reasserted her claim to the EleventhCircuit Court of Appeals along with another plaintiff.
Kaplan,504 F. App'x at 831 (Kaplan2). The EleventhCircuit reiterated the same points made by
the district courtin O’Neil. Id. at 834. The Eleventh Circuit noted that the “Defendants’ staff spent . .
. time away from their ownregular duties” in order to accommodatethe inexperienced plaintiffs
and that the plaintiffs’ presence “caused the Defendants’ businesses to run less efficiently and
caused [a] . . . duplication of effort” fromthe Defendants’ staff. Id. at 834. The “duplication of effort”
diminished the benefits the defendants’ received from the plaintiffs’’ workand led to the plaintiff’s
being qualified as trainees. Id.at 834.
The evidence in the current case likely supports a finding that Mrs. Faulk satisfies the fourth
element. Mrs. Faulk impeded the workof her co-workersand produced problems similar to the
problems caused by the plaintiff in O’Neill. Like the coworker’s in O’Neill, Mrs. Faulk’s supervisors
each had to take time away from their workduties to either train Mrs. Faulk or review her work.
Raekel and Sander would have been better benefitted if its employees were allowed to continue
working unimpeded. The time each employee spent helping Mrs. Faulk was time that the “firm had
to eat.” Also the workproduced by Mrs. Faulk provided little benefit. The documents she drafted
were each subject to a “duplication of effort.” Kaplan,504 F. App'x at 831 (Kaplan2). Like the
defendants’ staff in Kaplan2, Mrs. Faulk’s supervisors had to carefully review Mrs. Faulk’s work
before using the work of a “novice.” This fact diminished the intrinsic value Mrs. Faulk’s work
offered,because the “firmhad to eat” more time in order to review the work. The fourth element of
the Administrator’s Test is likely satisfied, since Raekel and Sander gained little benefit from and
was often hindered by Mrs. Faulk.

10. In her deposition, Mrs. Faulk contends that the staff at Raekel and Sander was not greatly hindered
by her presence and that her workprovided a benefit to the firm. She states that Gabi Roldan and
Tom Schroeder spent “20 minutes the entire summer” training her and that ScottEspinosa and
Debbie Sanders provided similarly minimal guidance. She also points out that the firm used the
motion, memo, and letter she drafted and therefore benefitted fromher work. Unfortunately,Mrs.
Faulk omits the factthat her supervisors had to oversee and review all of her work,whichis where
the firm likely lost most of its time. Also, the benefits Mrs. Faulk’s documents provided were
miniscule. Mrs. Faulk has testified that her worktasks were simple in nature and that she only
needed to “change the name . . . [and] the dates” on an existing motion when she drafted her own.
Scott Espinosa has also stated that Mrs. Faulk’s memo couldnot be used and was only valuable for
its research leads. Like the plaintiff in O’Neill, Mrs. Faulk has not demonstrated a benefit that is
substantial enough to offset the harm the she caused to the firm’s business. Mrs. Faulk’s
contentions are unlikely to disprove the fourthelement of the Administrator’s Test
E.Therewasneveran implicationthat DortheaFaulkwasentitledto employmentat Raekel
and Sandersoncehertrainingwascomplete.
To qualify as a trainee under the Administrator’s Test, an intern cannot receive an offerof future
employment upon completion of the internship program. Mrs. Faulk acknowledges that she was
never promised employment beyond her summer internship and this fact is uncontested by both
sides
F. BothDortheaFaulkand heremployersatRaekel SandersunderstoodthatDortheawould
not beentitled to wagesduringhertime as an intern.
There must be an understanding between the intern and the employer that wages will not be
provided during the course of the internship, in order for the intern to qualify as a trainee under the
Administrator’s Test. Mrs. Faulk acknowledges that she was never promised any wages during her
time as an intern and there is no question of fact on this element.