45 C.F.R. § 2556.300

Is a VISTA considered a Federal employee and is a VISTA considered an employee of the sponsor?

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Except for the purposes listed here, a VISTA is not considered an employee of the Federal Government. A VISTA is considered a Federal employee only for the following purposes:

(1) Federal Tort Claims Act—28 U.S.C. 1346(b); 28 U.S.C. 2671-2680;

(2) Federal Employees' Compensation Act—5 U.S.C. chapter 81, subchapter 1;

(3) Hatch Act—5 U.S.C. chapter 73, subchapter III;

(4) Internal Revenue Service Code—26 U.S.C. 1 et seq.; and

(5) Title II of the Social Security Act—42 U.S.C. 401 et seq.

(b) A VISTA is not considered a Federal employee for any purposes other than those set forth in paragraph (a) of this section.

(c) A VISTA is not covered by Federal or State unemployment compensation related to their enrollment or service in the VISTA program. A VISTA's service is not considered employment for purposes of eligibility for, or receipt of, Federal, State, or any other unemployment compensation.

(d) Monetary allowances, such as living allowances that VISTAs receive during VISTA service, are not considered wages. Monetary allowances, such as living allowances, that VISTAs receive during VISTA service are considered income for such purposes as Federal income tax and Social Security.

(e) A VISTA is not, under any circumstances, considered an employee of the sponsor or subrecipient to which they are assigned to serve. No VISTA is in an employment relationship with the sponsor or subrecipient to which they are assigned. The sponsor is not authorized to make contributions to any State unemployment compensation fund on a VISTA's behalf.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case (1 in the last 5 years), 2023–2023 · leading case: Hathaway v. Neighborhood House (D. Minnesota 2023).
Hathaway v. Neighborhood House (D. Minnesota 2023). · cites it 2× “” 45 C.F.R. § 2556.300 (e). Hathaway cannot allege an employment relationship under state law without contradicting this federal regulation.”
— 45 C.F.R. § 2556.300(e) — 1 case
Hathaway v. Neighborhood House (D. Minnesota 2023). “” 45 C.F.R. § 2556.300 (e). Hathaway cannot allege an employment relationship under state law without contradicting this federal regulation.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.