FLSA2019-14 — Whether active duty servicemembers participating in a job-training program through the Department of Defense's SkillBridge program would be subject to the FLSA, DBA, SCA, and CWHSSA

U.S. Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division
Washington, DC 20210

1

FLSA2019-14
November 7, 2019
Dear Name*:
This letter responds to your request for an opinion regarding whether active duty
servicemembers participating in job training with your business through the U.S. Department of
Defense (DOD) SkillBridge program would be subject to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA),
the Davis-Bacon Act, the Service Contract Act (SCA), and the Contract Work Hours and Safety
Standards Act ( CWHSSA). This opinion is based exclusively on the facts you have presented.
You represent that you do not seek this opinion for any party that the Wage and Hour Division
(WHD) is currently investigating or for use in any litigation that commenced prior to your
request.
BACKGROUND
You inquire on behalf of a small business specializing in general construction and construction
management that operates as a contractor on many federal construction projects, including one at
a major military installation. Your letter states that your company is interested in participating in
the DOD’s Job Training, Employment Skills Training, Apprenticeships, and Internships program
(known as the SkillBridge program)
1
in order to offer on the job training opportunities to active
duty military servicemembers.
You state that the SkillBridge program is designed to provide active duty servicemembers with
skill-building opportunities in a variety of fields with a goal of helping them build successful
careers once they leave the military. Active duty military servicemembers who are within six
months of leaving the military can choose to participate in the program.
2
According to the DOD
instructions, there are three main goals of these job training programs: (1) to improve each
servicemember’s level of skill and broaden the range of skill by building directly upon the
occupational skills acquired during military service; (2) to improve or provide skills that may not
relate to the occupational skills acquired during military service, but do relate to the successful
performance of a civilian occupation identified by the servicemember as his or her goal for
civilian employment upon separation; and (3) to refine or enhance skills acquired during military
service by redirecting skills that were acquired initially with a focus on the military mission

1
See Job Training, Employment Skills Training, Apprenticeships, and Internships (JTEST-AI) for
Eligible Service Members, No. PN9100000000009823, 2014 WL 556073 (Jan. 24, 2014) (hereinafter
“DOD Rules”).
2
According to DOD policy, participation in these programs is self-initiated. DOD Rules, Section 3(c);
see also DOD Rules, Enclosures 3 and 4.

2

toward related skills that are required to successfully perform occupations in the civilian
workforce.
3

Your letter states that your business would like to provide servicemembers with on-the-job
training opportunities through the SkillBridge program. You suggest that this training would
include basic safety, tool, and classroom education. You also state that such on-the-job training
would allow participants to shadow experienced craft professionals and gain holistic knowledge
of how construction sites operate. You further state that this training would include supervised
instruction appropriate for the servicemembers’ skill levels and allow participants to utilize the
skills they learn in a classroom or lab and apply them to an actual project under direct
supervision of program personnel or experienced craft professionals, or both.
The DOD specifies criteria that servicemembers must meet in order to participate in such
programs: (1) the internship, even though it includes actual operation of the facilities of the
employer, is similar to training which would be given in an educational environment; (2) the
internship experience is for the benefit of the intern; (3) the intern does not displace regular
employees, but works under close supervision of existing staff; (4) the employer that provides
the training derives no immediate advantage from the activities of the intern, and on occasion its
operations may actually be impeded; (5) the intern is not necessarily entitled to a job at the
conclusion of the internship; and (6) the employer and the intern understand that the intern is not
entitled to wages for the time spent in the internship.
4
DOD policy provides that participation in
these programs is self-initiated, then reviewed and authorized by the first field grade commander
in the servicemember’s chain of command.
5
DOD rules also provide that the “approval authority
will put in place personnel accountability procedures as part of the condition of approval
consistent with DOD and Military Department policies.”
6
The approval may be terminated
based on mission requirements, which requires the participating servicemember to immediately
withdraw from the program and report to his or her unit of assignment.
7

During their time in the SkillBridge program, the servicemembers are still on active duty and are
therefore employed by the military and continue to receive their military salary and benefits,
which are established by federal law. A business participating in the SkillBridge program is not
responsible for a servicemember’s medical care, disability, or workers’ compensation while
participating in the program because “[t]he Service member remains employed by the

3
Id. Enclosure 4, Section 1.a.
4
Id. Enclosure 4, Section 3.a. These criteria mirror the six-part test WHD used to evaluate internships
prior to January 2018. WHD has since adopted the “more holistic analysis” described below. See Field
Assistance Bulletin No. 2018-2, available at https://www.dol.gov/whd/FieldBulletins/fab2018_2.htm
.
5
DOD Rules, Enclosure 4, Section 3.c; see also DOD Rules, Enclosure 3. The DOD Rules specify that
approval authority is the first field grade commander authorized to impose non-judicial punishment under
Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice in the servicemember’s chain of command. The DOD
Rules also provide that this authority may not be delegated.
6
Id. Enclosure 3, Section 2.b.
7
Id. Enclosure 3, Section 2.c.

3

Department of Defense.”
8
Moreover, “[t]he Service member’s parent Service will continue to be
responsible for all pay and benefits for the member during their period of participation in the
SkillBridge Program.”
9
The DOD rules provide in relevant part that “[p]articipating Service
members are not eligible to receive from the [program] provider wages, training stipends, or any
other form of financial compensation for the time that the Service members spend participating
in [the program].”
10
Therefore, servicemember program participants receive financial
compensation only from the military during the time in which they choose to participate in the
SkillBridge program. Additionally, participating servicemembers may not request and will not
be permitted to work more than 40 hours in any workweek.
11

Your letter states that you would like to participate in the SkillBridge program because your
company feels “that the men and women in uniform deserve this opportunity as a reflection of
our gratitude for their service to our country.” Rather than requiring these servicemembers to
travel long distances for on-the-job training opportunities, your company would like to provide
such opportunities to servicemembers on or near the bases where they are stationed.
Accordingly, your letter requests clarity regarding whether active duty servicemembers who
participate in the SkillBridge program are subject to the FLSA, the Davis-Bacon Act, the SCA,
and the CWHSSA. You seek guidance in order to bring these active duty servicemembers onto
your jobsite and ensure that your small business is in compliance with the aforementioned laws.
GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES
A. FLSA Legal Principles
The FLSA applies to those workers whom the FLSA defines as “employees.” See 29 U.S.C. §§
206, 207. An “employee” is any individual whom an employer suffers, permits, or otherwise
employs to work. See 29 U.S.C. §§ 203(e)(1), (g). This definition is broad, but it was
“obviously not intended to stamp all persons as employees who, without any express or implied
compensation agreement, might work for their own advantage on the premises of another.”
Walling v. Portland Terminal Co., 330 U.S. 148, 152 (1947). WHD uses the “primary
beneficiary test” adopted by the courts to determine whether an intern is, in fact, an employee
under the FLSA. See Fact Sheet No. 71: Internship Programs Under the Fair Labor Standards
Act (rev. Jan. 2018). Under the primary beneficiary test, WHD examines the “economic reality”
of the intern-employer relationship to determine which party is the primary beneficiary. When
evaluating the primary beneficiary test, WHD considers seven non-exhaustive factors derived
from case law:

8
DOD SkillBridge FAQs, available at https://dodskillbridge.usalearning.gov/faq.htm.
9
Id.
10
DOD Rules, Enclosure 4, Section 1.c.
11
See Criteria for Career Skills Programs, available at
https://dodskillbridge.usalearning.gov/docs/Industry-Partners-Criteria-for-Career-Skills-Programs.pdf
.

4

(1) The extent to which the intern and the employer clearly understand that there is no
expectation of compensation. Any promise of compensation, express or implied,
suggests that the intern is an employee and vice versa.
(2) The extent to which the internship provides training that would be similar to that
which would be given in an educational environment, including the clinical and other
hands-on training provided by educational institutions.
(3) The extent to which the internship is tied to the intern’s formal education program by
integrated coursework or the receipt of academic credit.
(4) The extent to which the internship accommodates the intern’s academic commitments
by corresponding to the academic calendar.
(5) The extent to which the internship’s duration is limited to the period in which the
internship provides the intern with beneficial learning.
(6) The extent to which the intern’s work complements, rather than displaces, the work of
paid employees while providing significant educational benefits to the intern.
(7) The extent to which the intern and the employer understand that the internship is
conducted without entitlement to a paid job at the conclusion of the internship.
Id. Courts have noted that “[a]pplying these considerations requires weighing and balancing all
of the circumstances. No one factor is dispositive and every factor need not point in the same
direction ... to conclude that the intern is not an employee entitled to the minimum wage.” Glatt
v. Fox Searchlight Pictures, Inc., 811 F.3d 528, 537 (2d Cir. 2016); Schumann v. Collier
Anesthesia, P.A., 803 F.3d 1199, 1212 (11th Cir. 2015) (same). This is an inherently flexible
test. Glatt, 811 F.3d at 537. For example, factors tailored to training in the context of a formal
academic program are inapplicable if a formal academic program is not at issue. See Axel v.
Fields Motorcars of Fla., Inc., 711 F. App’x 942, 947 (11th Cir. 2017).
If analysis of these circumstances reveals that an intern is actually an employee, then he or she is
entitled to both minimum wage and overtime pay under the FLSA. On the other hand, if the
analysis confirms that the intern is not an employee, then he or she is not entitled to either
minimum wage or overtime pay under the FLSA.
B. Davis-Bacon Act, SCA, and CWHSSA Legal Principles
The Davis-Bacon Act requires that each contract over $2,000 to which the United States or the
District of Columbia is a party for the construction, alteration, or repair of public buildings or
public works contain a clause setting forth the minimum wages to be paid to various classes of
laborers and mechanics employed under the contract. See 40 U.S.C. § 3142 et seq. Section 4 of
the Davis-Bacon Act provides that the Act must not “supersede or impair any authority otherwise
granted by federal law to provide for the establishment of specific wage rates.” 40 U.S.C. §
3146.

5

The SCA generally requires government contractors to satisfy certain minimum compensation
standards for service employees under covered contracts. See 41 U.S.C. § 6701 et seq.
The CWHSSA “ is more limited in scope than the FLSA and generally applies to government
contracts in excess of $100,000 that require or involve the employment of laborers or mechanics,
including guards and watchmen.” Field Operations Handbook 14a03; 40 U.S.C. § 3702. The
CWHSSA requires contractors and subcontractors to pay covered laborers and mechanics time
and one-half their basic rate of pay for all hours worked over forty each week. Id. §§ 3701,
3702(a).
OPINION
A. FLSA
Based on the information provided, if you were to offer servicemembers the type of training
described in your letter in compliance with the DOD rules, the servicemembers engaged in your
program would appear to be interns, rather than employees, and thus would not be subject to the
FLSA.
According to the DOD rules, every servicemember participating in the SkillBridge program must
enter the program with the understanding that the position will be unpaid and there is not a
guaranteed offer of paid employment.
12
Assuming that you comply with the DOD rules,
therefore, the first and seventh internship factors, governing the servicemember’s expectations of
entitlement to compensation and eventual permanent employment by the private company,
respectively, would strongly favor an internship classification. See, e.g., Wang v. Hearst Corp.,
203 F. Supp. 3d 344, 351 (S.D.N.Y. 2016), aff’d, 877 F.3d 69 (2d Cir. 2017) (affirming first and
seventh factors favoring intern status where the intern understood “the position was unpaid and
did not guarantee an offer of paid employment”); Hollins v. Regency Corp., 144 F. Supp. 3d 990,
998-99 (N.D. Ill. 2015) (affirming the same where the intern acknowledged that internship
participation “did not amount to a guarantee that she would be employed upon graduation”).
The second factor concerns whether an internship provides training that would be similar to that
which would be given in an educational environment, including “hands-on” or “clinical” training
during his or her internship. Here, it appears that the servicemembers would gain educational or
vocational benefits from their potential internship. As discussed above, the internship would
include basic safety, tool, and classroom education; shadowing of experienced craft
professionals; supervised instruction; and the opportunity for participants to utilize the skills they
learn in a classroom or lab and apply them to an actual project. Moreover, participants would
gain holistic knowledge of how construction sites operate. As noted in your letter, the
SkillBridge program is specifically designed to provide servicemembers with hands-on skills
education in hopes of building successful careers after leaving the military. The second factor
therefore suggests that servicemembers engaged in the training you intend to provide would be
interns rather than employees.

12
DOD Rules, Enclosure 4, Section 3(a).

6

The third and fourth factors are inapplicable here as they are tailored to training in the context of
a formal academic program, which is not a component of the SkillBridge program. See Axel,
711 F. App’x at 947 (affirming district court conclusion that the factors tailored to training in the
context of a formal academic program do not apply if a formal academic program is not at issue).
The fifth factor compares the duration of an internship to its beneficial value to the intern. In
assessing this factor, courts “must keep in mind that designing an internship is not an exact
science.” Schumann, 803 F.3d at 1213 (adopting the Glatt test). Courts “should consider
whether the duration of the internship is grossly excessive in comparison to the period of
beneficial learning.” Id. at 1213-14. Participants in the SkillBridge program must be within 180
days (i.e., 6 months) of leaving the military.
13
Courts have found that this length of time strikes
an acceptable balance under the Glatt factors. See, e.g., Wang, 203 F. Supp. 3d at 353 (holding
that an internship lasting approximately 6 months was not “‘grossly excessive’ in comparison to
the tangible and intangible benefits they gained.”). Also, this duration factor is strengthened by
the fact that the participating servicemember could be required to withdraw from the internship
and report to their unit of assignment due to military mission requirements.
14
This factor
therefore suggests that a servicemember participating in the training you hope to offer through
the SkillBridge program would be an intern rather than an employee.
The sixth factor addresses the extent to which the intern’s labor complemented, rather than
displaced, the work of paid employees. Wang, 877 F.3d at 75 (explaining that an intern’s work
is “complementary if it requires some level of oversight or involvement by an employee, who
may still bear primary responsibility”). Thus, this factor is concerned with whether the intern’s
work was “educational rather than mere scut work that the paid employees would rather avoid.”
Mark v. Gawker Media LLC, No. 13-CV-4347(AJN), 2016 WL 1271064, at *11 (S.D.N.Y. Mar.
29, 2016). However, to qualify as complementary work, an intern’s labor need not be useless to
an employer, and indeed, can provide considerable benefits to the employer’s business or “be
work that paid employees would need to do ... in an intern’s absence.” Id. We understand from
your letter that you would provide “supervised training appropriate for [the interns’] skill level.”
Furthermore, DOD rules explicitly instruct that a servicemember participating in the SkillBridge
program cannot “displace regular employees, but works under close supervision of existing
staff.”
15
Moreover, the fact that servicemembers have continued day-to-day supervision by the
military,
16
including, for example, the possibility of terminating participation in the SkillBridge
program based on military mission requirements, suggests as a practical matter that the
servicemembers are not engaged in a manner that displaces paid employees. Taken together, all
of these facts make it less likely than not that these active duty servicemembers could be engaged

13
See 10 U.S.C. § 1143; see also DOD Rules, Enclosure 3, Section 2.a.
14
DOD Rules, Enclosure 3, Section 2.b.
15
DOD Rules, Enclosure 4, Section 3.a(3). The DOD Rules specify that the internship is limited to 6
months.
16
DOD policy requires that the first field grade commander in the servicemember’s chain of command
review and authorize participation in these programs, and that approval authority cannot be delegated.
The military approval authority is required to put in place personnel accountability procedures as part of
the condition of approval consistent with DOD and military department policies.

7

in a manner that displaces paid employees and further bolster the weight afforded to the
servicemembers’ intern status under the sixth factor.
17
As such, based on the information
provided, the sixth factor also favors the servicemembers’ intern status.
In light of the foregoing analysis, and given the totality of the circumstances, if you were to offer
an internship to servicemembers through the SkillBridge program, along the lines you describe
and in compliance with the DOD rules, the balance of the factors tips decidedly toward the
conclusion that the servicemembers would be classified as interns, rather than employees, under
the FLSA. Indeed, all of the applicable factors weigh in favor of an intern classification.
B. Davis-Bacon Act
The plain text of the Davis-Bacon Act, in pertinent part, cannot reasonably be read to cover the
SkillBridge program and its participants, including your small business. The Davis-Bacon Act
applies to government contracts that require or involve “the employment of mechanics or
laborers.”
18
We understand that the prospective servicemember participants are not eligible to
receive from the program or your business any “wages, training stipends, or any other form of
financial compensation” that would typically suggest paid employment during their time of
participation.
19
Instead, servicemember participants continue to earn their full military salaries
and benefits, as provided by federal statute. DOD guidance similarly explains that the
servicemembers are “employed by the Department of Defense” during their time of
participation.
20
In the course of that employment, for example, the military is solely responsible
for their wages and benefits, including each participating servicemember’s medical care,
disability, or workmen’s compensation. As another example, DOD may, at any time, terminate a
participating servicemember’s involvement in the SkillBridge program altogether and direct him
or her to report back to his or her unit of assignment, according to military mission requirements.
Section 4 of the Davis-Bacon Act provides that the Act does not “supersede or impair any
authority otherwise granted by federal law to provide for the establishment of specific wage
rates.”
21
Under this statute, therefore, when a separate federal authority explicitly establishes
specific compensation for an applicable individual, he or she is not still bound to be covered by
Davis-Bacon labor standards. Current WHD guidance contains numerous examples of instances
in which the Davis-Bacon Act does not apply in certain factual circumstances, including when
another federal program already provides the requisite compensation. For example, participants
in certain federal programs, such as the American Conservation and Youth Service Corps
(AmeriCorps), are “not covered by Davis-Bacon Act labor standards” because the authorizing
statutes for those programs specifically establish the participants’ compensation, including a

17
See DOD Rules, Enclosure 3, Section 2.
18
40 U.S.C. § 3142(a).
19
DOD Rules, Enclosure 4, Section 1.c.
20
See, e.g., 37 U.S.C. §§ 203-205 (establishing basic pay for servicemembers); DOD SkillBridge FAQs,
available at https://dodskillbridge.usalearning.gov/faq.htm
.
21
40 U.S.C. § 3146.

8

living allowance and other benefits.
22
Similarly, here, in accordance with Section 4 and based on
the facts outlined above, it is the Department’s position that Davis-Bacon Act labor standards
would not cover, or apply to, a servicemember who participates in the SkillBridge program on
your jobsite.
The conclusion that the Act does not apply to military members participating in the SkillBridge
program finds additional support when examining the Act’s purpose. Congress passed the
Davis-Bacon Act in 1931 “to set an earnings floor for federal contract employees, to protect
against substandard wages, and to promote the hiring of local labor.” See Amaya v. Power
Design, Inc., 833 F.3d 440, 443 (4th Cir. 2016). The Supreme Court has recognized that the Act
was “designed to protect local wage standards by preventing contractors from basing their bids
on wages lower than those prevailing in the area.” Univs. Research Ass’n, Inc. v. Coutu, 450
U.S. 754, 773-74 (1981) (citation omitted). In the words of one of the Act’s named sponsors,
Representative Bacon, the statute was intended to combat the practice of “certain itinerant,
irresponsible contractors, with itinerant, cheap, bootleg labor, [who] have been going around
throughout the country ‘picking’ off a contact here and a contract there.” Id. at 774. These
concerns regarding “bootleg” labor or preventing substandard wages are clearly not at issue in
the context of on-the-job training programs for active duty servicemembers. As already
emphasized, participants would continue to receive their full military compensation throughout
their time of participation, as set forth by federal statute. Moreover, the facts already highlighted
strongly suggest that active duty servicemembers would not be displacing paid employees.
23

After examining the text and purpose of the Davis-Bacon Act, the case law, the relevant
regulations and guidance, including the Field Operations Handbook, in light of the applicable
facts you have described, we conclude that the Davis-Bacon Act does not cover the SkillBridge
program and the military servicemembers who wish to participate.
C. SCA
As an initial matter, based on the information requested, it is unlikely that the SCA applies
because your small business primarily engages in construction projects, which gives rise to
Davis-Bacon Act coverage.
24
However, as the facts do not foreclose the possibility that the
Davis-Bacon Act does not cover all contracts in which the SkillBridge program participants may
be involved, WHD addresses the SCA as an alternative in response to your inquiry. For similar

22
See F ield Operations Handbook 15e04 (“In accordance with section 4 of the [Davis-Bacon Act],
participants in federal youth programs that establish specific compensation to be given participants would
not be covered by [Davis-Bacon Act] labor standards.”).
23
See DOD Rules, Enclosure 4, Section 3.a.
24
See 41 U.S.C. § 6702(b)(1).

9

reasons as to why the Davis-Bacon Act does not cover the SkillBridge program, as discussed
above, the SCA would also not cover the SkillBridge program pursuant to 41 U.S.C. § 6707(b).
Under the SCA, a “service employee” is defined as an “individual engaged in the performance of
a contract made by the Federal Government and not exempted under section 6702(b).”
25
The
Department’s regulations interpret the Act to apply to “all service employees . . . regardless of
whether they are the contractor’s employees or those of any subcontractor under such
contract.”
26

The structure and purpose of the statute and its accompanying regulations further support the
position that the requirements of the SCA do not reasonably apply to the SkillBridge program.
The statute’s stated chief priorities are “to provide wage and benefit protection to employees of
federal contractors.”
27
However, as explained above, SkillBridge participants are expressly
prohibited from receiving any compensation of any kind from your business or the SkillBridge
program, as the DOD rules broadly prohibit servicemembers from receiving “wages, training
stipends, or any other form of financial compensation” while they are participating in these
programs. “Compensation,” the title of the very first definition of the Act, further highlights the
disconnect between the underlying purpose of the SCA and the structure of the SkillBridge
program that explicitly prohibits such compensation.
28
Applying the requirements of the SCA to
the SkillBridge program would result in double payment to its participants, and would therefore
epitomize government inefficiency. In addition, as discussed above, the facts you have provided
strongly indicate that SkillBridge participants would not displace regular employees. Taken
together, applying the wage requirements of the SCA to SkillBridge participants would not serve
the purposes of the Act and accompanying Department regulations, in accordance with 41 U.S.C.
§ 6707(b).
For all of the reasons stated above, WHD concludes that the SkillBridge program and its
participants are beyond the intended reach and scope of the SCA, pursuant to 41 U.S.C. §
6707(b), as the participants remain fully compensated through their military employment.
D. CWHSSA
Finally, based on the facts you have provided, the requirements of the CWHSSA do not appear
to apply to SkillBridge participants.

25
41 U.S.C. § 6701(3).
26
29 C.F.R. § 4.150.
27
Halifax Tech. Servs., Inc. v. United States, 848 F. Supp. 240, 244 (D.D.C. 1994) (citing 41 U.S.C. §
6703(1)-(2)); see also 29 C.F.R. § 4.104 (“The Act’s purpose is to impose obligations upon those favored
with Government business by precluding the use of the purchasing power of the Federal Government in
the unfair depression of wages and standards of employment.”).
28
41 U.S.C. § 6701(1) (defining compensation as “any of the payments or fringe benefits described in
section 6703 of this title.”).

10

The CWHSSA “applies to all laborers and mechanics employed by a contractor or subcontractor
in the performance of any part of the work under the contract.”
29
The CWHSSA assures that
laborers and mechanics are paid overtime for work in excess of forty hours a week.
30
According
to the SkillBridge criteria, “[u]nder no circumstances will a participating [servicemember] be
requested or permitted to work more than 40 hours in any workweek.”
31
Therefore, to the extent
that your small business complies with the SkillBridge criteria, your business would not owe any
overtime pay under the CWHSSA. Accordingly, there is no need to further analyze the scope of
CWHSSA coverage as to the SkillBridge program.
32

CONCLUSION
Under the facts and circumstances described in your letter, we conclude that active duty
servicemembers who participate in the SkillBridge program would not be covered by the FLSA,
the Davis-Bacon Act, the SCA, and the CWHSSA. As emphasized throughout, these
aforementioned statutes were not intended to prevent potential businesses like yours from
participating in the SkillBridge program by providing on-the-job training opportunities and
instruction at a place and in a manner which would most benefit servicemembers who will soon
be leaving the military. To find otherwise would be a disservice to those who serve our country
in uniform.
This letter is an official interpretation by the Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division for
purposes of the Portal-to-Portal Act. See 29 U.S.C. § 259. This interpretation may be relied
upon in accordance with section 10 of the Portal-to-Portal Act, notwithstanding that after any
such act or omission in the course of such reliance, the interpretation is "modified or rescinded or
is determined by judicial authority to be invalid or of no legal effect." Id.
We trust that this letter is responsive to your inquiry.
Sincerely,

Cheryl M. Stanton
Administrator
*Note: The actual name(s) was removed to protect privacy in accordance with 5 U.S.C.
§ 552(b)(7).

29
40 U.S.C. § 3701(b) (emphasis added).
30
Masters v. Md. Mgmt. Co., 493 F.2d 1329, 1332 (4th Cir. 1974).
31
See Criteria for Career Skills Programs, available at
https://dodskillbridge.usalearning.gov/docs/Industry-Partners-Criteria-for-Career-Skills-Programs.pdf
.
32
Note that Section 105 of the CWHSSA authorizes the Department to grant an exemption where
“necessary and proper in the public interest to prevent injustice or undue hardship or to avoid serious
impairment of the conduct of Federal Government business.”