“an unpaid intern claiming that her internship was actually a paid position, just without a paycheck. “
“Claiming?” It isn’t just a “claim.” It is indisputable that her internship was a paid position for some people at the company. Other people got paid to fetch coffee and answer phones; she didn’t. That’s illegal.
And it doesn’t matter if she “negotiated” to do it for free. Nobody, not an employer, not an employee, has the power to ignore labor laws through “negotiation.”
Letterman loses big here, and the greedy SOB deserves to.
We read this very differently. Women in the oldest profession get paid generously for the services that Intern Monica Lewinsky provided for free, but that does not give Monica a valid claim on back pay.
Unpaid internships often include work for which others are paid, and the interns agree in the hope of learning marketable skills. Eliminating those internships (which your approach will do) will make it harder for those people to develop the skills to land a paying position. Creating labor law in this manner will quickly hurt those who would otherwise benefit from internships. As for fetching coffee, someone who tolerates much of that in an internship that is supposed to build professional skills should learn a very useful lesson on the sort of abuse to avoid.
We will never agree, and I will never support frivolous lawsuits. The fact that some activist judge or jury rules in favor of a frivolous claim does not give that claim validity.