Guilty as Charged
11,533 jurors voted Guilty & 932 voted Not Guilty
For generations, Goodwill has cultivated one of the most recognizable charitable identities in America. Millions of people donate clothing, furniture and household belongings believing those donations will help people with disabilities and others facing barriers to employment.
But behind that familiar charitable image is a vast network of nonprofit Goodwill organizations operating thousands of retail locations, selling billions of dollars’ worth of donated merchandise and, in some cases, receiving substantial government funding. The evidence examined in this case raised an important question: Does the charitable image presented to donors tell the whole story?
Goodwill was charged before Citizens for Justice with fraud and deceit and operating a scam upon donors. The case questioned whether members of the public fully understand how the Goodwill system operates, how donated merchandise generates revenue, how that money is spent, and whether certain practices within the Goodwill network are consistent with the charitable mission presented to donors.
Perhaps the most disturbing controversy concerned the very people Goodwill prominently says it exists to help: people with disabilities.
For years, some Goodwill organizations participated in a federal program under Section 14(c) of the Fair Labor Standards Act that permitted qualifying employers to pay certain workers with disabilities less than the federal minimum wage based upon their measured productivity. Disability-rights advocates strongly criticized the practice. Reports documented instances in which some disabled Goodwill workers received extraordinarily low hourly wages while executives within the Goodwill network received substantial compensation.
The National Federation of the Blind publicly protested Goodwill’s use of subminimum wages, arguing that paying workers with disabilities pennies per hour in some circumstances was fundamentally inconsistent with Goodwill’s public charitable mission.
Even more significant were actual federal findings involving wages.
In 2018, the United States Department of Labor determined that Goodwill Industries of the Coastal Empire in Georgia had violated federal labor laws affecting 165 employees. Investigators found that managers altered employees’ time records, deducted breaks that employees had not taken, shifted overtime hours between workweeks and failed to pay workers all wages legally owed to them.
Goodwill ultimately paid $114,936 in back wages.
This was not an accusation appearing on an Internet website. It was the result of a federal government investigation.
Goodwill affiliates have also faced serious actions by the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
The EEOC sued Goodwill Industries of Greater New York and Northern New Jersey over its treatment of a worker with a cognitive disability. The federal agency alleged that the employee was denied additional training or job coaching, received written warnings he could not understand and was ultimately fired. The case resulted in a $65,000 settlement and additional corrective measures.
An even more disturbing federal case involved Goodwill Industries of the Greater East Bay and its affiliate Calidad Industries in California. The EEOC alleged that vulnerable night-shift janitors—including employees with disabilities—were subjected to sexual harassment and that employees attempting to protect or assist them suffered retaliation. The defendants ultimately agreed to an $850,000 settlement, along with revised policies, training and independent monitoring.
More recently, in 2025, Heart of Texas Goodwill agreed to pay $75,000 to resolve another EEOC disability-discrimination case involving a deaf applicant whom the agency alleged had been denied employment because she could not hear or speak—even though she had previously performed substantially the same work at another Goodwill location.
Then there is the question of money.
Goodwill organizations receive merchandise from the public without purchasing the inventory and then sell those donated goods through an enormous retail network. Goodwill uses that revenue to finance employment, training and community programs, but its nonprofit status has not prevented senior executives within the Goodwill network from receiving substantial six-figure compensation packages.
High executive compensation is not itself illegal, nor does selling donated merchandise constitute fraud. Goodwill unquestionably provides legitimate employment and community programs.
But Citizens for Justice jurors were asked to consider the totality of the evidence: an organization whose charitable identity emphasizes helping disadvantaged and disabled people, while parts of its network have simultaneously faced controversies over subminimum wages, federal wage-law violations, disability discrimination, harassment, retaliation and substantial executive compensation.
The original Citizens for Justice case incorrectly identified a man named Mark Curran as Goodwill’s CEO. Subsequent investigation determined that this widely circulated claim originated with an Internet hoax. Curran was never Goodwill’s CEO or owner and has therefore been removed from the case.
Correcting that error does not erase the documented evidence concerning Goodwill organizations. Instead, it allows the case to rest upon stronger and independently verifiable evidence from federal agencies and legal proceedings.
The Citizens for Justice jury ultimately returned the following verdict:
GUILTY — 11,533 votes & NOT GUILTY — 932 votes
The verdict reflected the jury’s conclusion that an organization entrusted with billions of dollars’ worth of property donated by the public—and whose reputation depends upon helping vulnerable people—should be held to an exceptionally high standard of honesty, transparency and treatment of those it claims to serve.
The Citizens for Justice proceeding and verdict described above are not judgments of a state or federal court. The findings represent the results of the Citizens for Justice process. Readers should review the Citizens for Justice Disclaimer for additional information.