On-Site Employee Housing: Tenant Rights or Licensee Status?

Camps routinely provide on-site housing to key staff, including the year-round maintenance team, various members of camp leadership, and support staff. Of course, our seasonal staff also live on site throughout the camp season, but some of the most complicated questions arise as to year-round staff with long-term housing arrangements. 

When the relationship with an employee who lives on site ends, an important legal question often follows: Is that employee a “tenant” who is entitled to the extensive protections of state landlord-tenant law? The answer determines whether a camp must navigate a full eviction process, or whether the employee’s right to occupy the property ends when the employment relationship ends.

As is the case with many legal questions, the answer is that it depends: It depends on the particular facts and circumstances and applicable state law. With that said, the general legal framework is well settled, and understanding it can help camps avoid challenges down the line.

The law draws a distinction between “tenants” and “licensees.” Tenants are granted significant statutory protections under state law. Removing a tenant typically requires a formal eviction process, compliance with notice requirements, and adherence to various legal protections. By contrast, licensees are only permitted to occupy property for a limited and specific purpose; their rights are far more limited than those of tenants.

Conceptually, a licensee’s right to be on the property is entirely tied to the specific purpose for which they’re allowed on the property. For an on-site employee, that purpose is the performance of their job. Housing is provided as an incident of employment (i.e., solely because of the job) and not as a separate right to occupy the property as a tenant. When the job ends, the right to remain on site likewise ends.

Depending on state law, an employee who lives on site may be presumed to be a licensee rather than a tenant, particularly when the housing is provided to enable the employee to perform their job duties and is not separately rented at market rates. Just note that this presumption is less obvious in tenant-friendly states and, in any event, the presumption can be overcome. In addition to analyzing applicable state law, courts consider the totality of the circumstances, including factors such as whether rent is charged, how long the occupancy lasts, and whether the housing arrangement survives termination of employment.

This is where documentation matters. It can be helpful to have a written agreement that clearly states the employee is a licensee, not a tenant, and occupancy is conditioned on continued employment. The agreement should make clear that housing is provided solely for work-related reasons, there is no lease, and the employee must vacate promptly upon termination of employment (regardless of the reason for the termination). This language can be incorporated in your offer letter and doesn’t need to be subject to a separate agreement. While it won’t override the requirements of state law, it can help shape how a court views the relationship.

Whether an on-site employee is a licensee or a tenant is a fact-specific and state-specific analysis. Getting it wrong can significantly complicate and delay the process of removing a separated employee from your site. Written agreements may help, as does a clear understanding of how the law in your state approaches employees who live on site. If you’ve never looked into these questions, it could be a valuable exercise -- before a difficult separation turns into a landlord-tenant dispute that you never expected to have.