Close X
Attorney Spotlight

Find out which two countries Cheryl Palmeri gets the most questions about related to International Trade in today's market? Find out more>


Close X


Search our Experience

Experience Spotlight

In June 2016, AmSurg Corp. and Envision Healthcare Holdings, Inc. (Envision) announced they have signed a definitive merger agreement pursuant to which the companies will combine in an all-stock transaction. Upon completion of the merger, which is expected to be tax-free to the shareholders of both organizations, the combined company will be named Envision Healthcare Corporation and co-headquartered in Nashville, Tennessee and Greenwood Village, Colorado. The company's common stock is expected to trade on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol: EVHC. Bass, Berry & Sims served as lead counsel on the transaction, led by Jim Jenkins. Read more.

AmSurg logo

Close X

Thought Leadership

Enter your search terms in the relevant box(es) below to search for specific Thought Leadership.
To see a recent listing of Thought Leadership, click the blue Search button below.

Thought Leadership Spotlight

Inside the FCA blogInside the FCA blog features ongoing updates related to the False Claims Act (FCA), including insight on the latest legal decisions, regulatory developments and FCA settlements. The blog provides timely updates for corporate boards, directors, compliance managers, general counsel and other parties interested in the organizational impact and legal developments stemming from issues potentially giving rise to FCA liability.

Read More >

Labor Talk Blog: What Makes a Volunteer? Sixth Circuit Clarifies Test for Determining Employment Status of Volunteers


November 26, 2014

Volunteerism is good and should be encouraged by employers. However, with its use come concerns that the persons engaged in the labor may not actually be considered volunteers by the courts. This is particularly true in the Sixth Circuit, where the court of appeals has rejected the "threshold-remuneration test," an employer-friendly test that looks primarily and initially at whether there was any compensation or remuneration provided or intended for the work. The Sixth Circuit instead applies a balancing approach in which it considers all the common law of agency factors, raising questions as to how a court might "strike the balance." In light of this uncertainty, employers should consider the following:

  • Be careful when providing any benefits to volunteers, as such benefits show the persons are more akin to employees. If benefits can be characterized as "presently vested benefits with real financial value given as consideration for continued service," a court may find sufficient compensation for services giving rise to a finding of employment. If benefits will be provided, consider limiting them to only those that are accessible to the public generally.
  • Be wary of any "path to employment" concept. If "there is a sufficiently probable and clear path to employment from volunteer to paid position," this factor favors the finding of an employment relationship.
  • Never require volunteers to work a fixed schedule. Allow volunteers to maintain discretion over their own time.

A recent Sixth Circuit decision may also help remove some uncertainty. In Marie v. Am. Red Cross, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 21620 (6th Cir. 2014), two nuns (the "plaintiffs") volunteered for the Red Cross and the Ross County Emergency Management Agency. They later filed suit alleging, amongst other things, that the nonprofits had violated the law by terminating their working relationships on account of their religious beliefs. Applying the common law of agency, the lower court found the plaintiffs were not employees and thus could not pursue their discrimination claims. The plaintiffs appealed. On appeal, the Sixth Circuit again considered each of the common law of agency factors and affirmed the lower court.

Interestingly, the Sixth Circuit noted that no one factor should be given more weight, but then found it difficult to adhere to its own standard. The Court explained "[t]he economic reality is that when volunteers work without traditional forms of remuneration like salary and benefits, employers are generally without leverage to control that volunteer's performance." Id. at *29. And "control is 'the crux of Darden's common law agency test.'" Id. (quoting Weary v. Cochran, 377 F.3d 522, 525 (6th Cir. 2004)). In fact, "this Court has repeatedly held that the 'employer's ability to control job performance and the employment opportunities of the aggrieved individual' are the most important of the many factors to be considered." Id. at *26 (quoting Janette v. Am. Fid. Grp., Ltd., 298 F. App'x 467, 472 (6th Cir. 2008)) (emphasis added). Accordingly, the economic realities of the relationship "significantly undercut" the plaintiffs' claim that they were employees.

This is a significant holding for employers. Despite admonitions that each factor should be considered equally, clearly a lack of compensation will still weigh heavily against any finding of an employer-employee relationship, much like in the "threshold-remuneration test." Employers, especially nonprofit employers who often use volunteers, should remain mindful and take note of the suggestions above.

For more labor and employment information, visit

Related Professionals

Related Services


Visiting, or interacting with, this website does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. Although we are always interested in hearing from visitors to our website, we cannot accept representation on a new matter from either existing clients or new clients until we know that we do not have a conflict of interest that would prevent us from doing so. Therefore, please do not send us any information about any new matter that may involve a potential legal representation until we have confirmed that a conflict of interest does not exist and we have expressly agreed in writing to the representation. Until there is such an agreement, we will not be deemed to have given you any advice, any information you send may not be deemed privileged and confidential, and we may be able to represent adverse parties.