339 F. Supp. 3d 634
E.D. Mich.2018Background
- Plaintiffs are three former cosmetology students who completed clinical training at defendants' for‑profit cosmetology schools and later passed the state licensing exam.
- Defendants operate multiple schools and salons; revenue derives from tuition, kit/product sales, and salon services; paid support staff (aesthetics and guest services) and licensed instructors were also employed.
- State curriculum requires 1,500 hours (965 clinic hours) and tests sanitation/patron protection; defendants’ curriculum tracked the state requirements and provided minimal classroom instruction on salon business.
- Plaintiffs regularly performed non‑curricular tasks (cleaning, laundry, restocking) under instructor direction, often during “down time”; defendants provided documents directing instructors to assign these tasks and would send uncooperative students home (affecting required hours).
- Plaintiffs spent substantial clinic time on these tasks (estimates averaging ~25% of clinic hours); timekeeping for hours was sometimes manipulated to meet hour requirements.
- Procedural posture: cross‑motions for summary judgment. Court granted plaintiffs’ partial SJ (employees for cleaning/laundry/restocking) and denied defendants’ SJ as to those tasks but granted it as to other clinic/classroom activities.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether students performing cleaning/laundry/restocking are "employees" under the FLSA | These tasks are outside the educational curriculum and defendants took unfair advantage; plaintiffs therefore are employees for that time | Students are trainees whose clinical time is educational; no employee relationship exists | Students are employees for time spent cleaning, laundering, and restocking (not for other clinic/classroom activities) |
| Whether the primary‑beneficiary test applies to contested activities | If activities are within the learning situation, apply Laurelbrook primary‑beneficiary test; otherwise treat tasks beyond training as potential compensable work | Activities are part of the clinical training and thus not compensable | Court: tasks here are outside the training/learning situation, so Laurelbrook primary‑beneficiary test does not immunize them from FLSA coverage |
| Whether defendants "took unfair advantage" of students' need to complete program | Plaintiffs: defendants made completion contingent on performing these tasks (explicit guidance; sending students home) | Defendants: assigning such tasks was part of clinic management/education | Court: defendants explicitly and implicitly required students to perform these tasks and exploited the power imbalance; unfair advantage found |
| Whether time spent on these tasks was de minimis | Plaintiffs: time was substantial (daily half hour to multiple hours; ~14–32% of clinic time) | Defendants offered no competing figures and argued tasks were incidental | Court: time was not de minimis; plaintiffs entitled to compensation for that time |
Key Cases Cited
- Walling v. Portland Terminal Co., 330 U.S. 148 (Sup. Ct.) (trainees covered if they are employees; training that primarily benefits trainee supports non‑employee finding)
- Tony & Susan Alamo Foundation v. Secretary of Labor, 471 U.S. 290 (Sup. Ct.) (FLSA excludes individuals working without expectation of compensation for solely personal purposes)
- Solis v. Laurelbrook Sanitarium & Sch., Inc., 642 F.3d 518 (6th Cir.) (adopts primary‑beneficiary framework for training/learning contexts)
- Glatt v. Fox Searchlight Pictures, Inc., 811 F.3d 528 (2d Cir.) (adopts multi‑factor primary‑beneficiary test for interns)
- Schumann v. Collier Anesthesia, P.A., 803 F.3d 1199 (11th Cir.) (activity outside learning situation may be compensable if employer takes unfair advantage)
- Reich v. Parker Fire Prot. Dist., 992 F.2d 1023 (10th Cir.) (alternative balancing approach to trainee status)
- Blair v. Wills, 420 F.3d 823 (8th Cir.) (manual labor integral to an institution's educational mission can be non‑compensable)
- White v. Baptist Memorial Health Care Corp., 699 F.3d 869 (6th Cir.) (FLSA does not cover de minimis work)