They Got Discounted Golf, but No Paychecks: Why Court OK’d It

After several years of volunteer work, three individuals filed a lawsuit under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), saying they should have received paychecks.

They’d been given benefits such as discounted golf for volunteering. But in their lawsuit, they claimed the public agency that owned the golf course violated the FLSA’s minimum wage and anti-retaliation provisions.

A federal district court disagreed, ruling in favor of Palm Beach County’s classification of them as volunteer golf attendants, not employees. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed that decision on March 12, 2024.

Here’s what happened:

Not Working for Paychecks

The case, Adams v. Palm Beach County, was brought by three golf attendants at Osprey Point Golf Club, owned by the county.

The county’s parks and recreation department put out an advertisement that stated: “Volunteers Needed.” The ad said that the volunteers would perform services in exchange for discounted golf and other benefits. The county never planned to issue paychecks for them.

Three individuals who signed up to be volunteers spent their time as course rangers, driving-range attendants and bag-drop attendants. Their various duties – which they weren’t allowed to choose – included greeting customers; carrying and loading their golf clubs; raking sand traps and filling divots; and many other tasks.

Under the FLSA, public-agency volunteers aren’t included in the definition of “employee” and therefore don’t need to receive paychecks. But certain conditions must be met.

The court determined the golf attendants in question met those conditions. For example:

• attendants could accept tips but weren’t paid wages, and
• if they worked at least one seven-hour shift in a week, they could play unlimited rounds of golf during certain days, times and locations for a low rate. Considering that a round of golf at Osprey Point Golf Club cost $96, volunteers received a significant discount when they paid only $5 per round. That was a reasonable benefit and couldn’t be considered compensation, the court said.