{"id":92,"date":"2026-01-06T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-01-06T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=92"},"modified":"2026-01-06T12:00:00","modified_gmt":"2026-01-06T12:00:00","slug":"spilman-v-salvation-army-a169279-volunteer-employee-test","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=92","title":{"rendered":"Spilman v. The Salvation Army \u2014 Trial Court Used Wrong Test to Decide Whether Rehab Program Participants Were Volunteers or Employees"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
Case<\/dt>\n
Spilman v. The Salvation Army<\/dd>\n
Court<\/dt>\n
1st District Court of Appeal, Division Five<\/dd>\n
Date Decided<\/dt>\n
2026-01-06<\/dd>\n
Docket No.<\/dt>\n
A169279<\/dd>\n
Status<\/dt>\n
Reported \/ Citable<\/dd>\n
Topics<\/dt>\n
Wage and Hour, Volunteer vs. Employee, Nonprofit Religious Organizations, Substance Abuse Treatment, Minimum Wage<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n

Background<\/h2>\n

Justin Spilman, Teresa Chase, and Jacob Tyler entered the Salvation Army’s six-month residential adult rehabilitation program in San Francisco, Stockton, and Chico between 2015 and 2020. As part of the program, they performed full-time ‘work therapy’ in the Salvation Army’s warehouses and thrift stores, often more than 40 hours a week. They received dormitory housing, meals, clothing, counseling, and small canteen-card ‘gratuities,’ but no wages. Outside employment was prohibited.<\/p>\n

After leaving the program, the plaintiffs sued under California’s Labor Code and applicable wage orders, alleging they were entitled to the minimum wage and overtime for the work they did. The Salvation Army argued they were volunteers in a religious nonprofit’s rehabilitation program, not employees. The trial court agreed and granted summary judgment to the Salvation Army.<\/p>\n

The plaintiffs appealed.<\/p>\n

The Court’s Holding<\/h2>\n

The Court of Appeal reversed and remanded. The court agreed in principle that an individual can perform unpaid work for a nonprofit charitable or religious organization without becoming an ’employee’ for wage-law purposes. However, the trial court used the wrong test. It treated the plaintiffs’ subjective expectation of compensation as essentially dispositive \u2014 if a participant did not expect to be paid, no employment relationship existed.<\/p>\n

The Court of Appeal held that California’s wage protections apply to anyone who ‘suffers or is permitted to work,’ a deliberately broad standard. The volunteer-versus-employee inquiry under California law turns on the objective economic reality of the relationship \u2014 the degree of compulsion, who controls and benefits from the work, the value of in-kind benefits, and whether the work is analogous to commercial labor \u2014 not merely on whether the worker hoped for a paycheck. The court drew on California case law and federal guidance distinguishing genuine volunteers from individuals whose ‘volunteering’ looks economically indistinguishable from employment.<\/p>\n

Because the trial court did not analyze these objective factors, summary judgment could not stand. The case returns to the trial court to decide, applying the correct standard, whether triable issues exist on whether these plaintiffs were genuine volunteers in religious-rehabilitation activities or were de facto employees of the Salvation Army’s commercial thrift-store operation.<\/p>\n

Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n