January 2022 - Parks & Recreation - 32

LAW REVIEW
(or at least equal) benefit than a
golf course providing discounted
rounds of golf. "
The federal district court also
cited precedent from a federal
appeals court, which had held a
stipend for a school golf coach
was a " nominal fee " for purposes
of the Public Agency Volunteer
Exception. In the cited precedent
case, the federal appeals court
had held " as a matter of law that
the stipend was not 'compensation'
for service rendered because
it was paid without regard to the
number of hours worked " and
" the amortized hourly rate was
less than the federally-mandated
minimum wage. "
Similarly,
The federal district court concluded:
" Plaintiffs were receiving a reasonable, noncompensatory,
limited, golf-related benefit for
volunteering at a golf course. "
available. " The benefit could only
be used at County-owned courses.
Providing this benefit did not directly
cost the County anything.
If a Plaintiff opted to play a discounted
round of golf, he still had
to pay the County $5.
Further, the court found no
indication in the complaint
that " allowing these discounted
rounds precluded others (who
would pay full price) from using
the courses. " The complaint,
therefore, failed to allege " the
County suffered a loss of other
revenue. " As a result, the court
found nothing in the complaint
to " refute the logical inference
that
there was
no
material
marginal cost to the County from
allowing an extra round of golf
to be played " by the Plaintiffs.
Moreover, the court found no
indication in the complaint that
32 Parks & Recreation |
" this benefit could be monetized
by transferring it to a third party. "
Based upon all of these factors, the
federal district court concluded:
" Plaintiffs were receiving a
reasonable,
non-compensatory,
limited, golf-related benefit for
volunteering at a golf course. "
In the opinion of the court, this
conclusion was consistent with
the examples in the Department
of Labor FLSA regulations. Under
these regulations, the court
noted " reasonable benefits " included
" inclusion of individual
volunteers in group insurance
plans (such as liability, health,
life, disability, workers' compensation)
or pension plans or 'length
of service' awards. " As characterized
by the court: " Providing
someone with insurance or permitting
them to participate in a
pension plan is a more significant
J ANUAR Y 2 0 22 | PARK S ANDRECRE AT ION . OR G
in
this case, the court found " the
discounted golf privilege only
accrues after a minimum number
of hours are worked " but, once
earned, the privilege was " not tied
to the number of hours worked. "
Further,
the court found the
value of the benefit to Plaintiffs
Adams and Kasmere was " comparable
to, or less than the annual
stipend " in the cited precedent involving
the school golf coach. In
particular, the court noted that the
complaint did not allege the number
of hours that each Plaintiff
worked. As a result, the court determined
the complaint " does not
create an inference that the value
of the discounted golf benefit exceeded
minimum wage. "
Moreover, in the opinion of the
mistakenly arcourt,
" Plaintiffs
gue
several times that the Court is
bound by nonfactual,
irrelevant,
or unsupported allegations in the
complaint " that Plaintiffs received
" compensation "
and " in-kind
compensation. " In so doing, the
court found Plaintiffs had confused
January 2022 - Parks & Recreation

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of January 2022 - Parks & Recreation
