Glatt v. Fox Searchlight Pictures, Inc.
791 F.3d 376
| 2d Cir. | 2015Background
- Plaintiffs (Glatt, Footman, Antalik) were unpaid interns at Fox Searchlight/Fox corporate divisions and sued under the FLSA and NYLL for minimum wages and overtime. Glatt and Footman proceeded individually; Antalik sought class and collective certification.
- Glatt: two unpaid internships on Black Swan (accounting and post‑production); worked long hours; not receiving academic credit.
- Footman: unpaid production intern on Black Swan; long hours and routine production errands; not enrolled in a degree program.
- Antalik: unpaid publicity intern at corporate office; enrolled in a degree program that required an internship but apparently did not receive credit.
- District court granted partial summary judgment finding Glatt and Footman were employees, certified a Rule 23 New York class and conditionally certified a nationwide FLSA collective. Defendants appealed under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper legal test to determine when an unpaid intern is an "employee" under FLSA/NYLL | Use DOL/Portland Terminal focus: employer receives immediate advantage => intern is an employee | Adopt a flexible "primary beneficiary" test weighing whether intern or employer primarily benefits | Court adopts a flexible primary‑beneficiary test with non‑exhaustive factors and rejects rigid deference to DOL Fact Sheet |
| Whether summary judgment for Glatt & Footman was proper under the correct test | Plaintiffs argued facts met the (DOL‑style) factors showing employment | Defendants argued totality of circumstances under primary beneficiary test raises factual issues | Vacated district court's partial summary judgment and remanded to apply primary‑beneficiary framework; additional evidence may be allowed |
| Whether district court properly certified Antalik’s Rule 23 New York class | Class-wide proof (e.g., replacement of paid employees) shows common liability issues predominate | Individualized primary‑beneficiary inquiries vary across internships and departments, defeating predominance | Vacated class certification; individualized inquiries predominate; remanded |
| Whether district court properly conditionally certified nationwide FLSA collective | Plaintiffs made modest factual showing that interns were victims of a common policy (preliminary step) | Wide variation in internships nationally means plaintiffs are not similarly situated even at conditional stage | Vacated conditional certification of nationwide collective; remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- Walling v. Portland Terminal Co., 330 U.S. 148 (1947) (Supreme Court decision distinguishing trainees from employees)
- Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134 (1944) (weight of agency interpretation depends on persuasiveness)
- Barrentine v. Arkansas‑Best Freight Sys., Inc., 450 U.S. 728 (1981) (employee rights under FLSA cannot be waived)
- Tony & Susan Alamo Foundation v. Secretary of Labor, 471 U.S. 290 (1985) (discussion of FLSA coverage and exceptions)
- Velez v. Sanchez, 693 F.3d 308 (2d Cir. 2012) (summary judgment standard and totality approach in FLSA contexts)
- Barfield v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp., 537 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 2008) (flexible ‘‘economic reality’’ test for employment)
- Brock v. Superior Care, Inc., 840 F.2d 1054 (2d Cir. 1988) (factors approach in determining employment status)
- Myers v. Hertz Corp., 624 F.3d 537 (2d Cir. 2010) (two‑step approach to conditional FLSA collective certification)
- Brown v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., 755 F.3d 154 (2d Cir. 2014) (use of discrete factors within totality analysis)
- Solis v. Laurelbrook Sanitarium & Sch., 642 F.3d 518 (6th Cir. 2011) (Portland Terminal facts not dispositive for future trainee analyses)