Chen v. Major League Baseball Properties, Inc.
798 F.3d 72
| 2d Cir. | 2015Background
- John Chen volunteered at MLB FanFest in July 2013 (Javits Center); he worked ~14 hours across shifts and attended ~3 hours of mandatory orientation and received in-kind benefits (t-shirt, cap, backpack, water bottle, baseball) but no wages.
- FanFest was a five-day, baseball-themed interactive event described by MLB as a "theme park" with batting cages, clinics, exhibits, memorabilia displays, and other sporting/entertainment activities.
- Chen sued MLB Properties and the Office of the Commissioner of Baseball alleging violations of the FLSA minimum wage and NYLL, seeking collective/class treatment; defendants moved to dismiss asserting the seasonal amusement/recreational establishment exemption at 29 U.S.C. § 213(a)(3).
- The district court dismissed Chen's FLSA collective action claims, finding FanFest qualified for the seasonal amusement/recreational exemption, and declined supplemental jurisdiction over NYLL claims; Chen appealed.
- The Second Circuit reviewed (de novo) whether "establishment" in § 213(a)(3) means a distinct physical place of business and whether FanFest plainly qualifies as a seasonal amusement/recreational establishment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Meaning of "establishment" under § 13(a)(3) | "Establishment" should be treated as the enterprise (MLB) or evaluated by DOL's multifactor test (functional integration, shared employees, records), not just physical place | "Establishment" means a distinct physical place of business (DOL regs and Supreme Court precedent) | Court: "establishment" means a distinct physical place of business, not the entire enterprise; DOL definition persuasive |
| Whether FanFest is the relevant establishment | FanFest should be aggregated with MLB (single establishment) because MLB planned and controlled FanFest | FanFest is physically separate (Javits Center) and thus a distinct establishment qualifying for the exemption | Court: FanFest is a separate establishment because it was physically separate from MLB's offices |
| Whether FanFest is seasonal | Chen argued MLB's broader operations might defeat seasonality | FanFest ran 5 days in July (<7 months); so it is seasonal | Court: FanFest satisfies seasonality requirement of § 213(a)(3) |
| Whether FanFest is an "amusement or recreational establishment" | Chen urged that FanFest might be a "convention" (Field Operations Handbook) and not an exempt amusement/recreational establishment | Defendants relied on event character (theme park, interactive sporting entertainment) and DOL definitions of amusement/recreational establishments | Court: FanFest plainly falls within amusement/recreation — event promoted as a "baseball theme park" with interactive sporting amusements; the handbook guidance did not control |
Key Cases Cited
- A.H. Phillips, Inc. v. Walling, 324 U.S. 490 (1945) ("establishment" means a distinct physical place of business)
- Arnold v. Ben Kanowsky, Inc., 361 U.S. 388 (1960) (FLSA exemptions to be narrowly construed against employers)
- Long Island Care at Home, Ltd. v. Coke, 551 U.S. 158 (2007) (agency interpretations receive limited deference; Skidmore discussed)
- Davis v. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., 587 F.3d 529 (2d Cir. 2009) (FLSA exemptions construed narrowly; application limited to those plainly within terms and spirit)
- Brennan v. Yellowstone Park Lines, Inc., 478 F.2d 285 (10th Cir. 1973) (same meaning of "establishment" under § 13(a)(3) as under § 13(a)(2))