Fernandez v. Zoni Language Centers, Inc.
858 F.3d 45
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiffs (English-as-a-second-language instructors) worked at two private for-profit Zoni Language Centers in NYC and sued under the FLSA and New York Labor Law for unpaid out-of-class preparation/grading time and overtime.
- Plaintiffs were paid hourly ($16–$17) for classroom time only; they alleged 8–10 uncompensated out-of-class hours per week (15–30% of total work time).
- Defendants are licensed by the New York State Department of Education as ESL schools and accredited by a nationally recognized accrediting agency; state rules impose teacher qualifications for ESL instructors.
- District court dismissed plaintiffs’ federal FLSA claims under Rule 12(b)(6), holding teachers at Zoni were exempt as "bona fide teaching professionals" because Zoni qualified as an "educational establishment." State-law claims were dismissed without prejudice.
- On appeal, the Second Circuit considered whether Zoni qualifies as an "other educational institution" under DOL regulations (29 C.F.R. § 541.204(b)) and therefore whether the § 213(a)(1) teaching-professional exemption applies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Zoni is an "educational establishment" under 29 C.F.R. § 541.204(b) | Zoni is not such an establishment because it is a for-profit language school whose instructors/students lack traditional degrees/certificates | Zoni is an "other educational institution": it imparts knowledge in a formal classroom, has state licensure and national accreditation, and fits DOL guidance | Zoni is an "other educational institution"; regulation's text, purpose, licensure/accreditation and DOL opinion letters support inclusion |
| Whether ESL instructors at Zoni qualify as "teaching professionals" exempt from FLSA overtime/minimum wage | Plaintiffs concede primary duty is teaching but argue exemption inapplicable because employer is not an educational establishment | Defendants: teachers' primary duty is imparting knowledge at an educational institution, so salary test is inapplicable and teachers are exempt | Teachers are exempt under § 213(a)(1)/29 C.F.R. § 541.303(a); dismissal of federal claims affirmed |
| Whether DOL regulation listing "includes" limits the category to schools for disabled/gifted and post-secondary career programs | Plaintiffs: enumerated examples show Congress/agency intended a narrow class | Defendants: "includes" signals a non-exhaustive, catchall category; examples are illustrative | Court rejects narrow reading; "includes" is illustrative, not exclusive |
| Whether further discovery was required on licensure/accreditation compliance | Plaintiffs: factual development could show lack of actual compliance and defeat exemption | Defendants: regulation asks only whether institution has licensure/accreditation, not compliance details | Court: no further discovery needed for the legal question; pleadings and judicially-noticeable licensure/accreditation suffice |
Key Cases Cited
- Ramos v. Baldor Specialty Foods, Inc., 687 F.3d 554 (2d Cir.) (deference to DOL regulations interpreting FLSA exemptions)
- Glatt v. Fox Searchlight Pictures, Inc., 811 F.3d 528 (2d Cir.) (FLSA overtime and minimum wage overview)
- Chen v. Major League Baseball Props., Inc., 798 F.3d 72 (2d Cir.) (narrow construction of FLSA exemptions; Rule 12(b)(6) review standard)
- Anani v. CVS RX Servs., Inc., 730 F.3d 146 (2d Cir.) (duties and salary requirements for professional exemption)
- Halo v. Yale Health Plan, Dir. of Benefits & Records Yale Univ., 819 F.3d 42 (2d Cir.) (approach to regulatory interpretation)
- Barfield v. N.Y.C. Health & Hosps. Corp., 537 F.3d 132 (2d Cir.) (persuasive value of DOL opinion letters)
- Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., 796 F.3d 199 (2d Cir.) (FLSA remedial purpose; overwork rationale)