Interns, Unpaid by a Studio, File Suit

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/29/business/interns-file-suit-against-black-swan-producer.html?_r=1


Interns, Unpaid by a Studio, File Suit
By STEVEN GREENHOUSE
Published: September 28, 2011


Two men who worked on the hit movie “Black Swan” have mounted an unusual challenge to the film industry’s widely accepted practice of unpaid internships by filing a lawsuit on Wednesday asserting that the production company had violated minimum wage and overtime laws by hiring dozens of such interns.
Enlarge This Image

Marcus Yam for The New York Times
“If you want to get your foot in the door on a studio picture, you have to suck it up and do an unpaid internship.” ERIC GLATT, 42 An accounting intern for “Black Swan.”
Add to Portfolio

American International Group Inc
Go to your Portfolio »
The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Manhattan, claims that Fox Searchlight Pictures, the producer of “Black Swan,” had the interns do menial work that should have been done by paid employees and did not provide them with the type of educational experience that labor rules require in order to exempt employers from paying interns.

“Fox Searchlight’s unpaid interns are a crucial labor force on its productions, functioning as production assistants and bookkeepers and performing secretarial and janitorial work,” the lawsuit says. “In misclassifying many of its workers as unpaid interns, Fox Searchlight has denied them the benefits that the law affords to employees.” Workplace experts say the number of unpaid internships has grown in recent years, in the movie business and many other industries. Some young people complain that these internships give an unfair edge to the affluent and well connected.

One plaintiff, Alex Footman, a 2009 Wesleyan graduate who majored in film studies, said he had worked as a production intern on “Black Swan” in New York from October 2009 to February 2010.

He said his responsibilities included preparing coffee for the production office, ensuring that the coffee pot was full, taking and distributing lunch orders for the production staff, taking out the trash and cleaning the office.

“The only thing I learned on this internship was to be more picky in choosing employment opportunities,” Mr. Footman, 24, said in an interview. “ ‘Black Swan’ had more than $300 million in revenues. If they paid us, it wouldn’t make a big difference to them, but it would make a huge difference to us.”

Russell Nelson, a Fox Searchlight spokesman, said Wednesday afternoon, “We just learned of this litigation and have not had a chance to review it so we cannot make any comment at this time.”

The lawsuit is seeking class-action status for what the plaintiffs say were more than 100 unpaid interns on various Fox Searchlight productions. In addition to seeking back pay under federal and state wage laws, the lawsuit seeks an injunction barring Fox Searchlight from improperly using unpaid interns.

Fox Searchlight acted illegally, the lawsuit asserts, because the company did not meet the federal labor department’s criteria for unpaid internships. Those criteria require that the position benefit the intern, that the intern not displace regular employees, that the training received be similar to what would be given in an educational institution and that the employer derive no immediate advantage from the intern’s activities.

Movie companies have defended using unpaid interns, saying the internships are educational, highly coveted and an important way for young people to break into the industry. Lawyers for numerous companies say the Labor Department’s criteria are obsolete, adding that department officials rarely enforce the rules against unpaid internships.

The other named plaintiff, Eric Glatt, 42, who has an M.B.A. from Case Western Reserve University, was an accounting intern for “Black Swan.” He prepared documents for purchase orders and petty cash, traveled to the set to obtain signatures on documents and created spreadsheets to track missing information in employee personnel file.

Mr. Glatt, who had been working at A.I.G. training new employees, said he took the position because he wanted to move into the film industry.

“When I started looking for opportunities in the industry, I saw that most people accept an ugly trade-off,” he said. “If you want to get your foot in the door on a studio picture, you have to suck it up and do an unpaid internship.”

Adam Klein, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said this would be the first of several lawsuits that seek to fight these internships.

“Unpaid interns are usually too scared to speak out and to bring such a lawsuit because they are frightened it will hurt their chances of finding future jobs in their industry,” he said.

Mr. Footman said he was sticking his neck out because “I hope this case will hold the industry to a higher standard and will get rid of this practice.”
 
Ha! I posted this yesterday on the Sonnyboo Intern thread :lol:

It's interesting because I do think that they have a point (to an extent) but they're doing their careers irreparable harm by filing this lawsuit.
 
He said his responsibilities included preparing coffee for the production office, ensuring that the coffee pot was full, taking and distributing lunch orders for the production staff, taking out the trash and cleaning the office.

And that's exactly why i never went will go to the film school.... Instead of making coffee for some as*hole for 12 hours i could be shooting my own short film ;)
 
Ha! I posted this yesterday on the Sonnyboo Intern thread :lol:

It's interesting because I do think that they have a point (to an extent) but they're doing their careers irreparable harm by filing this lawsuit.

Maybe Michael Moore will hire them? :P

Either way, if there is going to be change (whether that be necessary or right, or not,) somebody has to be willing to take the risk of ruining their career.
 
I fully support this. On a low/no budget shoot working for free is fine. In such a situation you're almost guaranteed to get hands on production experience. On a big budgeted studio film you almost never get any actual hands on experience doing anything that remotely matters.
 
Also, wasn't this in the news a while back? I remember some companies started calling them apprenticeships instead of internships to get around the legal issues...
 
These positions have a tendency to be filled by rich kids anyways, but I'm happy to see them take on the industry. If they start paying a decent wage, entry-level positions like this will be an option for the not-so-privileged, too, who often can't afford to work for nothing.

Solidarity!

-Charles
 
I'm thinking they took on the job knowing they weren't going to get paid as well as knowing that they (as interns) would be doing all those jobs. They need to not take internships that aren't paid then. Simple as that.
 
I'm thinking they took on the job knowing they weren't going to get paid as well as knowing that they (as interns) would be doing all those jobs. They need to not take internships that aren't paid then. Simple as that.

Exactly. They entered into a very clear agreement, we do what you'll say for free, so we can say we have actual experience. After the film becomes a box-office hit, they file a suit for compensation. This is going back on a very clear agreement that they knowingly entered into.


‘Black Swan’ had more than $300 million in revenues. If they paid us, it wouldn’t make a big difference to them, but it would make a huge difference to us.”

This is like a tech getting hired to set up a millionaire's internet. They agree that the tech will be paid $500 for 10 days work. The tech does his work and gets paid. He hears that the millionaire made $1,000,000 in the last 10 days because he shorted a hot stock, with his internet trading account. The tech then sues millionaire because he had a hand in the internet set-up.
 
Last edited:
Exactly. They entered into a very clear agreement, we do what you'll say for free, so we can say we have actual experience. After the film becomes a box-office hit, they file a suit for compensation. This is going back on a very clear agreement that they knowingly entered into.




This is like a tech getting hired to set up a millionaire's internet. They agree that the tech will be paid $500 for 10 days work. The tech does his work and gets paid. He hears that the millionaire made $1,000,000 in the last 10 days because he shorted a hot stock, with his internet trading account. The tech then sues millionaire because he had a hand in the internet set-up.

With all due respect, they are completely different things. If it were a 'volunteer' position or even a minimum wage position, you'd be absolutely right. They would be reneging on a contract. But the job title for these guys was 'intern.' By law, in the US, you must provide one of two things to your intern. Pay or school credit/education. Since they were unpaid, it was the productions responsibility to provide them with education and school credit. They are claiming that they did not receive any education and therefore it's the production that is reneging on the agreement, not them.

I'm not actually taking sides here, just putting it out there.
 
With all due respect, they are completely different things. If it were a 'volunteer' position or even a minimum wage position, you'd be absolutely right. They would be reneging on a contract. But the job title for these guys was 'intern.' By law, in the US, you must provide one of two things to your intern. Pay or school credit/education. Since they were unpaid, it was the productions responsibility to provide them with education and school credit. They are claiming that they did not receive any education and therefore it's the production that is reneging on the agreement, not them.

I'm not actually taking sides here, just putting it out there.

I see what you mean but "education" is very subjective. You could learn something just watching a film production take place. They might have had annoying errands to run all day but it's hard to believe that they didn't learn anything. The part that I was mostly referring to is the fact that the suit is ultimately for money. The article even quotes them saying that they feel they should have made money BECAUSE the film made money. If this film were a box-office failure, this suit would probably not exist. It's just really hard to believe that 1, they didn't learn anything and 2, that they are upset because they didn't learn anything and this suit is out of that anger, and not a quick way to get paid.

‘Black Swan’ had more than $300 million in revenues. If they paid us, it wouldn’t make a big difference to them, but it would make a huge difference to us.”
 
I have to say that simply being on the set of a film like Black Swan would be an amazing opportunity. I kind of fear what Phil is saying and that, rather than as Alcove wants, this case might make large productions less likely to offer educational positions.

But why can't we take sides here?

I think that if you're offering an internship then you should definitely seek to teach your interns something about the industry. But I also think that simply having the chance to observe an Oscar nominated film set in action is an education in itself. It seems like this lawsuit is attempting to profit from the film's success- even if the experience itself wasn't as amazing as it could've been, they've had a foot in the door of the industry that most of us would sell a kidney for.
 
Could've been worse. They could've gotten an internship at Kramerica Industries.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJI8BkNYOJY

"And with Darren's help, we'll get that chicken!"
 
rather than as Alcove wants,

WOAH!!!!! I don't "want" anything. I read this and found it fascinating, and the discussion in this thread has been interesting.

They absolutely have a case - if in fact they were intentionally kept away from anything that would have been "educational." That is the crux of the entire law suit; did they, in fact, have the opportunity to learn something about the film industry.

Getting something out of a situation like an internship depends entirely upon what you put into it. I get the feeling that these clowns expected to have immediate contact with the director, stars and department heads, believing that that would be the only way they would learn anything.
 
The other named plaintiff, Eric Glatt, 42, who has an M.B.A. from Case Western Reserve University, was an accounting intern for “Black Swan.” He prepared documents for purchase orders and petty cash, traveled to the set to obtain signatures on documents and created spreadsheets to track missing information in employee personnel file.

I dunno, sounds to me like this candidate performed duties commensurate with , or at least related to, his major/degree. Not sure why he'd sue for wages when he, apparently, received academic credits in exchange. As Alcove alluded to, did this guy expect to broker the next big blockbuster or what?

The other guy, not so sure unless we could see his daily logs. What did he do besides go-fering? One could argue that these not-so glamorous assignments are, indeed, a big part of the day in a *Hollywood* film. If it's anything like the college I went to, an intern candidate would definitely know the production fundamentals before applying for, and being awarded, an internship. Sounds like a simple rude awakening to me and I'm also not sure rocking the boat, in this instance, is a wise move. To each their own, though.
 
Here's a link with some information from the Department of Labor:Internship Programs Under The Fair Labor Standards Act

Some relevant quotes:
There are some circumstances under which individuals who participate in “for-profit” private sector internships or training programs may do so without compensation. The Supreme Court has held that the term "suffer or permit to work" cannot be interpreted so as to make a person whose work serves only his or her own interest an employee of another who provides aid or instruction. This may apply to interns who receive training for their own educational benefit if the training meets certain criteria. The determination of whether an internship or training program meets this exclusion depends upon all of the facts and circumstances of each such program.

The following six criteria must be applied when making this determination:

1. The internship, even though it includes actual operation of the facilities of the employer, is similar to training which would be given in an educational environment;
2. The internship experience is for the benefit of the intern;
3. The intern does not displace regular employees, but works under close supervision of existing staff;
4. The employer that provides the training derives no immediate advantage from the activities of the intern; and on occasion its operations may actually be impeded;
5. The intern is not necessarily entitled to a job at the conclusion of the internship; and
6. The employer and the intern understand that the intern is not entitled to wages for the time spent in the internship.

If all of the factors listed above are met, an employment relationship does not exist under the FLSA, and the Act’s minimum wage and overtime provisions do not apply to the intern. This exclusion from the definition of employment is necessarily quite narrow because the FLSA’s definition of “employ” is very broad. Some of the most commonly discussed factors for “for-profit” private sector internship programs are considered below.

Displacement And Supervision Issues

If an employer uses interns as substitutes for regular workers or to augment its existing workforce during specific time periods, these interns should be paid at least the minimum wage and overtime compensation for hours worked over forty in a workweek. If the employer would have hired additional employees or required existing staff to work additional hours had the interns not performed the work, then the interns will be viewed as employees and entitled compensation under the FLSA. Conversely, if the employer is providing job shadowing opportunities that allow an intern to learn certain functions under the close and constant supervision of regular employees, but the intern performs no or minimal work, the activity is more likely to be viewed as a bona fide education experience. On the other hand, if the intern receives the same level of supervision as the employer’s regular workforce, this would suggest an employment relationship, rather than training.

I'd say they definitely have a case.
 
Last edited:
I do think the kids have a point. The position is supposed to be educational. Yes, I understand that in real life, a paid PA might do nothing more than keep a coffee pot full, and fetch random things, but that's not very educational. Free labor should at least be compensated by being able to learn something real.

By comparison, my older brother held an internship at a network affiliate news station, in Seattle. Not surprisingly, he was given all the menial tasks that nobody else wanted to do. But these were real tasks that actually had to do something with the news show. He spent most of his time, for example, logging footage. Logging footage is about as fun as having teeth pulled, but at least he was doing something related to the production of the show. Keeping coffee pots full? That's just ridiculous. Furthermore, my brother, in his off-time, was allowed to use the equipment, in order to create his own demo reel. In my opinion, that's how free labor should work.

I hope these kids win their lawsuit.
 
Back
Top