Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-95-05152/USCOURTS-caDC-95-05152-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Filed May 31, 1996

No. 95-5152

WILLIAM M. NICASTRO, ET AL.,

APPELLANTS

v.

JANET RENO, ET AL.,

APPELLEES

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia

(No. 94cv00590)

On Motion for Summary Affirmance

William M. Nicastro and Roy D. Little, pro se.

Eric H. Holder, Jr., United States Attorney, R. Craig Lawrence and Kimberly Nickelson Tarver,

Assistant United States Attorneys, were on the motion for summary affirmance, for appellees.

Before: WALD, GINSBURG and TATEL, Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the court filed PER CURIAM.

PERCURIAM: The question presented here is whether federal prisoners who work for Federal

Prison Industries, Inc. (FPI) are "employees" entitled to receive the minimum wage under the Fair

Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. We hold that they are not.

William M. Nicastro and Roy D. Little, federal prison inmates, applied for and were placed

in industrial assignments with FPI in the United States Penitentiary at White Deer, Pennsylvania.

Theybrought this claimunder the FLSA against the Executive Directors ofFederalPrison Industries,

the Attorney General, and other federal officials, seeking compensation at the minimum wage rate.

Applying Henthorn v. Department of Navy, 29 F.3d 682 (D.C. Cir. 1994), the district court granted

defendants' motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). We affirm.

USCA Case #95-5152 Document #203319 Filed: 05/31/1996 Page 1 of 2
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Henthorn sets the criterion for determining when prisoner-laborers are "employees" entitled

to the minimum wage under the FLSA. To qualify, a prisoner must have "freely contracted with a

non-prison employer to sell his labor." 29 F.3d at 686.

The district court properly determined that neither the law nor the facts support plaintiffs'

assertion that the labor they perform for FPI is voluntary. The mandatory work requirement applies

to allfederal prisoners who are physically and mentally able to participate. Pub. L. No. 101-647, 104

Stat. 4914 (1990), cited at 18 U.S.C. § 4121 note (1994) (Mandatory Work Requirement for All

Prisoners). While inmates can request an industrial work assignment with FPI instead of an

institutional job, they have not freely contracted to sell their labor. Choosing where to work is not

the same as choosing whether to work. At one task or another, the prisoner "is legally compelled to

part with his labor as part of a penological work assignment," and, therefore, the complaint fails to

state a claim under the FLSA. See Henthorn, 29 F.3d at 686.

The complaint fails under the second part of the Henthorn test as well, see id. at 686-87:

Federal Prison Industries, Inc. is not a "non-federal employer." Accord Sprouse v. Federal Prison

Industries, Inc., 480 F.2d 1 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1095 (1973). FPI is a government

corporation designed to enhance the opportunity offederal inmatesto learn trade and industrialskills.

18 U.S.C. § 4123 (1994). Its funds come from the United States Treasury and its profits return there.

18 U.S.C. § 4126(a). Rules and regulations promulgated by the Attorney General govern FPI's

payment of compensation to inmates. 18 U.S.C. § 4126(c)(4).

Thus, the plaintiffs are barred from asserting a claim for compensation at the minimum wage

because they have not met either of the prerequisites for "employee" status under the FLSA.

So ordered.

USCA Case #95-5152 Document #203319 Filed: 05/31/1996 Page 2 of 2