Though it was passed in 1938, the FLSA's six-point test is still used today for hiring unpaid interns. To be compliant with FLSA, an unpaid internship must:

1. The internship must be for the benefit of the intern
2. The internship must provide similar training that would be given in an educational environment
3. The employer should not derive any immediate advantage from the intern
4. The intern must not displace regular employees, and should work under close supervision of existing staff
5. The intern is not entitled to a job at the end of the internship
6. The intern understands that he is not entitled to monetary compensation

For employers considering offering internships, compliance with FLSA should be a top priority. The Chubb Group of Insurance Cos. also suggests addressing the following factors:

• Paid or Unpaid? Internship programs are changing as a result of recent lawsuits by unpaid interns. Although these cases usually concern compensation, to reduce the risk for litigation, Chubb suggests that companies consider how to treat interns with regard to anti-discrimination and anti-retaliation policies, handling grievances and other protections offered to the other employees.
• Work Hours? Different states have different definitions of adequate compensation or hours worked. Employers must be aware of state wage and hour laws.
• Program Information? Interns, like any other employee, should be provided with a detailed description of the internship, training experience and a statement that indicates that an internship program is compliant with labor laws.

"While businesses may believe they have met all the necessary guidelines regarding unpaid programs, they may find that more often than not, they haven't," says Tyson. "When in doubt, it's always a good idea to check with the Department of Labor or your human resources or general counsel departments."

Some interns have retaliated against their employers in big ways if they feel as though their rights are violated. Click through the following slides for three major internship lawsuits where the six stipulations of the FLSA are put to the test.

 Hearst Corp.

Former intern Xuedan "Diana" Wang for fashion magazine Harper's Bazaar filed a class action lawsuit against the publishing company Hearst Corp., seeking damages for five months of unpaid labor for her work in the magazine's accessories department.

Wang claimed that her work of 40 to 55 hours a week as a "head intern," supervising eight other unpaid workers, violated her rights under FLSA, as the group served as merely a messenger service for the magazine, carrying bags of clothes and accessories to and from PR firms. According to Wang, the work did not constitute an internship because of its lack of educational value.

Hearst, on the other hand, maintained that the internship was legal. The publisher issued a statement claiming that their internships are designed to enhance the educational experience for students who receive academic credit for their participation.

Wang had already graduated from Ohio State when she began the internship, and received course credit by contacting the university, and ultimately paying approximately $700 for two credit hours to be added to her transcript.

On May 8, 2013, however, the court denied the class certification, siding with Hearst. Judge Harold Baer, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, determined that four of the six factors of the FLSA were inconclusive, making the summary resolution of the case inappropriate. He also stressed the importance of the primary recipient of benefits from the relationship between employer and intern. This ruling seems to provide employers with considerable freedom in the design of unpaid internships.

 Fox Entertainment Group

Natalie Portman may have won an Oscar for her work in "Black Swan," but Fox Searchlight interns Eric Glatt and Alexander Footman, who worked on the film, won their court battle against the film's production company, Fox Entertainment Group.

The interns first launched their civil action case on behalf of themselves and more than 100 other Fox Searchlight interns in September 2011. Federal District Court Judge William H. Pauley III ruled that the production company should have paid their employees because the intern's status was equivalent to that of a regular employee.

According to the ruling, the internships did not foster an educational environment and the studio, not the interns, received the primary benefits of the work. Mr. Glatt and Mr. Footman cited that their work on the film included chores such as taking lunch orders, answering phones, arranging travel plans, taking out the trash and assembling furniture. These tasks are usually undertaken by paid employees.

"Undoubtedly Mr. Glatt and Mr. Footman received some benefits from their internships, such as résumé listings, job references and an understanding of how a production office works," Judge Pauley wrote. "But those benefits were incidental to working in the office like any other employees and were not the result of internships intentionally structured to benefit them. Searchlight received the benefits of their unpaid work, which otherwise would have required paid employees."

Bad Boy Entertainment

Another lawsuit due to "un-educational" free labor was filed by Rashida Salaam against Sean "Diddy" Combs' record label Bad Boy Entertainment.

Salaam claims that her tasks were menial, consisting of answering phones, picking up lunch or bringing coffee to paid employees, making deliveries, giftwrapping and decorating the office for holidays.

This case comes after the Fox Searchlight lawsuit, which was largely considered to be a watershed moment for cases involving internships and violations of the FLSA. Free labor that cannot be constituted as "educational" violates the stipulations of the FLSA and since the Fox lawsuit, academic credit alone is no longer an acceptable policy for justifying unpaid internships.

Since the lawsuit against Diddy's Bad Boy Entertainment, several other record labels, including Warner Music, Columbia and Atlantic Records have been subject to similar class-action lawsuits.