330 U.S. 148 (1947)
Walling v. Portland Terminal Co.
Are individuals who participate in a short, unpaid training program to qualify for possible future employment—without displacing regular workers, without a promise of a job, and where the employer derives no immediate advantage from their work—"employees" entitled to minimum wage under the FLSA?
While the FLSA defines "employ" broadly as "to suffer or permit to work," the Act does not make every person who performs activities at a place of business an employee. Individuals who, without expectation of compensation and primarily for their own benefit, receive training similar to that provided in a vocational setting, who do not displace regular employees, and whose activities do not confer an immediate advantage on the employer (and may even impede operations), are not "employees" within the meaning of the FLSA for the period of such training.
The trainees were not "employees" under the FLSA during the training period; therefore, the railroad was not required to pay them minimum wages for that time, and injunctive relief was unwarranted.
Walling v. Portland Terminal Co. is foundational to modern doctrine on unpaid trainees and interns. It launches the analytical framework—later distilled by the Department of Labor and courts—focusing on whether the arrangement primarily benefits the trainee and whether the employer receives an immediate advantage. The case thus informs the multi-factor "trainee" and, more recently, the "primary beneficiary" test applied to internships across industries. For law students, Walling illustrates purposive statutory interpretation within labor law and serves as a caution to assess the real economic substance of training arrangements rather than labels alone.