Texas HR Consulting for High-Stakes People Decisions.
Return to HR FAQ Library

What should a nonprofit do when an employee acts inappropriately at a fundraising event?

It is still the workplace. Attendance was work, the conduct standard applied, and the alcohol does not change either.

Last updated: August 02, 2026

Direct Answer

A nonprofit should promptly investigate the incident, document all relevant facts, and apply consistent disciplinary procedures aligned with its policies. Managing this carefully is crucial because leaders often feel pressure to act quickly yet fairly, balancing legal risks and relationships in a high-visibility setting.

Controlling authority: the Fair Labor Standards Act and 29 CFR pt. 553 on volunteer status, Tex. Gov’t Code ch. 551 and ch. 552 on open government, and your own bylaws, charter or form of government, which control questions of authority.

A work event is the workplace

In practice, addressing inappropriate employee conduct at a fundraising event requires more than just following a checklist. The situation is often public and involves stakeholders beyond the usual workplace audience. Nonprofits must act deliberately to maintain trust with donors, volunteers, and the community while upholding internal standards. This means moving beyond assumptions to gather clear facts and ensuring the response fits both compliance needs and operational realities.

What I see employers miss is how easily pressure to minimize disruption can lead to inconsistent or incomplete responses. If the nonprofit’s leadership reacts without a clear, documented process, it risks escalating the issue or undermining morale. The goal is not just to enforce rules but to preserve institutional integrity and reduce future risk through transparent, accountable handling.

The Volunteer Status Gate CheckFour gates that determine whether an individual is a genuine volunteer or an employee for FLSA purposes.GATE 1MotiveCivic, charitableor humanitarianreasons?GATE 2No pay expectedNo promise, noexpectation, noreceipt?GATE 3Freely offeredNo coercion,direct orimplied?GATE 4Different workNot the same servicesthey are paid toperform here?All four gates met → employer liability is available to the claimant.Any gate not met → the conduct may still be lawful, and still expensive.
Figure The Volunteer Status Gate Check. Gate 3 is where employer-organised volunteering usually fails, because pressure from a supervisor need only be implied. Gate 4 is absolute for public agencies and close to it for nonprofits: a paid employee cannot volunteer to do their own job. Faulkner HR Solutions. Original framework, 2026. Cite as: Faulkner, T.W. (2026). The Volunteer Status Gate Check. Faulkner HR Solutions. Legal tests: 29 CFR pt. 553.

Whether attendance was compensable is a separate question, and often yes

One common gap is assuming that event conduct falls outside formal HR oversight. In reality, fundraising events are extensions of the workplace environment, so policies and codes of conduct apply fully. Overlooking this connection leads to confusion about who investigates and disciplines, which can delay or derail effective action. It’s critical to clarify roles and expectations in advance so managers are prepared.

Another frequent mistake is neglecting proper documentation. Memories fade and stories diverge, especially when multiple people witness the same incident differently. Without timely, objective records, defending the nonprofit’s response to complaints or grievances becomes difficult. Documentation also supports consistent application of discipline, which employees notice and respect more than vague promises of fairness.

When someone is genuinely a volunteer, and when they are an employee U.S. Department of Labor, FLSA volunteer guidance (29 CFR pt. 553) and Fact Sheet #14A. Table by Faulkner HR Solutions.
TestRequirementWhere it fails
MotiveCivic, charitable or humanitarian reasonsNot a route to unpaid labour for work the organisation would otherwise pay for.
No expectation of payNo promise, expectation or receipt of compensationA promised bonus, stipend or “we’ll make it up to you” defeats the status.
Freely offeredWithout coercion, direct or impliedThis is where employer-organised volunteering fails. Implied pressure from a supervisor counts.
Not the same services — public agenciesA public-agency employee may not volunteer to perform the same type of services they are employed to perform for that agencyThe single clearest rule, and the one most often broken by a well-meaning department.
Nominal feeExpenses, reasonable benefits or a nominal fee are permittedPayment must reflect sacrifice, not productivity. Per-call payment can be acceptable; per-unit output generally is not.
NonprofitsIndividuals may volunteer for charitable organisations without expectation of payBut a paid employee cannot volunteer to do their own job unpaid for the same organisation.

Where event conduct is mishandled

Ignoring or mishandling inappropriate employee behavior at fundraising events exposes nonprofits to operational, legal, and reputational risks that are often avoidable with a sound response process.

  • Inconsistent discipline damaging employee trust and morale
  • Public relations fallout harming donor and community confidence
  • Legal exposure from harassment or misconduct claims
  • Leadership uncertainty causing delayed or ineffective action
  • Loss of institutional knowledge due to poor documentation

Apply the same standard you would on site

Start by reviewing your nonprofit’s existing policies on employee conduct, event behavior, and discipline to confirm they explicitly cover fundraising events. Then, examine how managers and HR typically handle complaints in practice. Are investigations timely, and do outcomes align with stated policies? This operational check ensures your response system is not just written but workable under real constraints.

Next, assess your documentation processes. Do managers know how and when to record incidents? Is there a secure place to store this information for future reference? Consider whether training or clearer guidance is needed to equip leaders with practical, usable frameworks. These steps reduce risk and help preserve fairness and accountability, even when resources are limited.

Free tool

Documentation Defensibility Scorecard

Rates a real file against the standard a reviewer will apply to it.

When donors or clients witnessed it

Engaging HR professionals early can prevent small issues from becoming larger problems. If the incident involves potential legal violations, conflicting witness accounts, or high-profile stakeholders, expert guidance ensures compliance and appropriate risk management. HR can also assist in crafting communication strategies that maintain donor and community confidence.

Additionally, nonprofits with limited internal HR capacity should consider outside support to review policies, train leadership, or handle investigations impartially. Outsourced HR expertise brings perspective that balances compliance with operational realities, helping nonprofits navigate these sensitive situations without overburdening existing staff.

Need Help Managing Event-Related Employee Issues?

Faulkner HR Solutions specializes in strategy-backed, practical HR support for Texas nonprofits navigating challenging employee situations. Contact us to strengthen your policies, train your leaders, or handle complex investigations with confidence and compliance.

Contact Us Today

Written and reviewed by Dr. Thomas W. Faulkner, DBA, MBA, MSML, SPHR, LSSBB, principal consultant at Faulkner HR Solutions, a Texas HR consulting firm based in San Antonio serving small businesses, nonprofits, municipalities, and public sector employers.

This page provides general HR information for employers and is not legal advice. For legal interpretation or representation, consult qualified employment counsel.