A Salvation Army work program does not violate forced labor laws despite paying participants as little as $1 a week, a federal appeals court ruled on Aug. 6.
The plaintiffs filed a lawsuit after they said they enrolled in the Salvation Army’s Adult Rehabilitation Center program, which provides food, clothing, housing, and other amenities in exchange for work.
Participants work full-time and receive a small gratuity, between $1 and $25 per week, for the work. The plaintiffs alleged that the Salvation Army uses its rehabilitation programs not to rehabilitate people in need but instead as a “coercive labor arrangement that serves only the organization’s financial interests.”
The other plaintiffs could leave at any time, undercutting their position, the judge said.
The two-judge majority said the complaint “tells a plausible story that the Salvation Army sustained its operation by preying on the most vulnerable in our society” but that an alternative explanation to seeking out homeless people and drug users for the program is that those people are most likely to benefit from rehabilitation.
“The allegations describe a responsibly run treatment program designed to assist individuals who, in order to rid themselves of an alcohol or drug dependency, need to subject themselves to a safe and disciplined environment free of the distractions that can induce so easily retrogressive behavior,” Ripple said.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit accepted an appeal in the case after a federal district judge in 2022 ruled against the plaintiffs, finding their claims were barred by a legal doctrine that prevents federal courts from adjudicating matters already decided upon by state bodies.
The Second Circuit majority said that finding was erroneous because the plaintiffs were not challenging court orders requiring them to participate in the program, but that the plaintiffs nevertheless failed to prove their forced labor claims.
Ripple was joined by U.S. Circuit Judge Michael Scudder.
Jackson-Akiwumi highlighted allegations that the Salvation Army threatened to kick participants out of housing if they did not work for as little as $0.02 cents an hour and that the nonprofit abruptly removed some program participants.
“These are just a few of the details plaintiffs allege in their 46-page complaint, but these details sufficiently demonstrate that the complaint has ‘heft,’ so I depart from the majority opinion’s contrary conclusion,” she wrote, adding later: “From plaintiffs’ complaint, we know exactly what their theory of this case is and the facts they think prove that theory. That is all that is required at this early stage in the litigation.”
