Overview
Cohen Milstein represents participants in Salvation Army adult rehabilitation centers (ARCs) and adult rehabilitation programs (“ARC workers”), who perform labor in support of the organization as a condition of their enrollment, in three lawsuits across the country, alleging that The Salvation Army violated federal law and many states’ laws when it failed to pay them minimum wage.
Plaintiffs, who are unhoused, impoverished, and often struggling with addiction, enroll in Salvation Army ARCs. As a condition of participation, they must perform “work therapy,” including physically demanding labor supporting its lucrative thrift store operations. ARC workers haul furniture, operate machinery, repair goods, and sort donations. Participants must work at least 40 hours per week under staff supervision, in exchange for as little as $1 weekly, plus communal housing and food. They cannot seek outside employment while working at the ARC.
These class and collective actions were filed in federal courts in New York, Illinois and Georgia, alleging that relevant territories of The Salvation Army, encompassing 38 states and thousands of ARC workers, violated federal law and many state laws when they failed to treat ARC workers as employees. Currently, the case styled Michael Clancy, et al. v. The Salvation Army, Case No. 1:22–cv–01250, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois is the only case in active litigation. The Courts in Massey [Case No. 1:22-CV-00979.] and Acker [Case No. 1:22-cv-01968] have entered stays (or temporary pauses).
Please note: The period to join this lawsuit has closed.
Important Rulings
- On March 31, 2026, the Honorable Manish S. Shah of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, granted Salvation Army’s motion for summary judgment in the Clancy lawsuit. On April 8, 2026, Plaintiffs appealed this ruling to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
- On March 26, 2026, the court granted class and collective certification in the Clancy lawsuit.
- On January 31, 2023, Judge Manish Shah of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois issued an order denying The Salvation Army’s motion to dismiss in the Clancy case.
- In all three cases, the Salvation Army moved to dismiss the complaints, arguing that even accepting the allegations in the plaintiffs’ complaints as true, the plaintiffs had not alleged that they were The Salvation Army’s employees under the FLSA and relevant state laws.
- In Clancy, Judge Shah rejected all of The Salvation Army’s arguments for dismissal., finding that the allegations in the Clancy—whether the workers had an expectation of compensation, whether the employer or workers were the primary beneficiaries of the work, whether the workers were economically dependent on the employer, and whether the labor practice undermined minimum labor standards or resulted in unfair competition—“point in favor of a covered employment relationship” between the plaintiffs and The Salvation Army.
- On March 8, 2023, Judge Sarah E. Geraghty of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia issued an order denying The Salvation Army’s motion to dismiss in the Massey case Judge Geraghty rejected all of The Salvation Army’s arguments for dismissal, finding that Alvear plausibly alleged employment with respect to all of the relevant considerations—whether the workers had an expectation of compensation, whether the employer or workers were the primary beneficiaries of the work, and whether a finding of employment would advance or hinder the FLSA’s purposes.
- On March 15, 2023, Judge Jesse M. Furman of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York issued an order denying The Salvation Army’s motion to dismiss in the Acker case. Judge Furman explained orally at a March 29, 2023 teleconference the reasons for his decision. After denying the motion to dismiss, he ordered The Salvation Army to answer the complaint.
- In November 2023, the Courts in Alvear and Geiser, now referred to as Massey and Acker respectively, have entered stays (or temporary pauses) while the parties complete discovery and brief class and collective certification in Clancy. The Clancy case is the first case to proceed because it was the first to begin discovery.
Case Background
Thousands of vulnerable individuals—people who are unhoused or marginally housed, who are very poor, who have drug or alcohol addiction problems, who are entangled in the criminal justice system, and/or who suffer from mental illness—enroll in Salvation Army adult rehabilitation centers and adult rehabilitation programs (“ARCs”) each year. As a condition of their enrollment, these individuals must take part in “work therapy,” performing difficult labor in support of the Salvation Army’s operations, particularly its lucrative thrift stores. ARC workers haul heavy furniture, operate dangerous machinery, repair broken goods, and organize donations. If participants are unable to complete their assigned work, they are expelled from the program and its associated housing.
This work is performed for at least 40 hours per week, under the direction or control of Salvation Army employees, in exchange for wages starting as low as $1 a week and capping out at $20-$30 per week, as well as cramped communal housing, and food. ARC workers are not allowed to seek additional work outside of the Salvation Army to supplement their income. They are required to relinquish any government benefits, including food stamps, to the organization for the duration of their enrollment.
On March 9, 2022, Cohen Milstein and co-counsel filed putative class and collective actions federal courts in New York, Illinois and Georgia, alleging that relevant territories of The Salvation Army, encompassing 38 states and thousands of ARC workers, violated federal law and many state laws when they failed to treat ARC workers as employees. The cases further allege that The Salvation Army violated federal law and many state laws by failing to pay ARC workers the federal minimum wage and certain state minimum wages for all hours worked.
The cases are styled: Michael Clancy, et al. v. The Salvation Army, Case No. 1:22–cv–01250, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois; Robert Massey, et al. v. The Salvation Army, Case No. 1:22-cv-00979-SEG, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Georgia; and Avery Acker, et al. v. The Salvation Army, Case No. 1:22-cv-01968-JMF, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York.
Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys from Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP, and Rukin Hyland & Riggin LLP. The plaintiffs in the case filed in Georgia are also represented by Radford & Keebaugh.