Glatt v. Fox Searchlight Pictures, Inc., 811 F.3d 528

Plaintiffs were unpaid interns at Fox Searchlight/Fox corporate offices (roles in production, post-production, accounting, publicity) who sued under the FLSA and New York Labor Law for unpaid minimum wages and overtime.
Eric Glatt and Alexander Footman moved for partial summary judgment that they were employees; Eden Antalik moved to certify a New York class (2005–2010) and conditionally certify a nationwide FLSA collective (2008–2010).
The district court granted Glatt and Footman partial summary judgment and certified Antalik’s Rule 23 New York class and a conditional nationwide FLSA collective; defendants obtained interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. §1292(b).
The central legal question: when does an unpaid intern qualify as an "employee" under the FLSA (and NYLL) and thus must be paid? The district court applied a DOL six-factor test but balanced factors rather than requiring all be met.
The Second Circuit vacated the district court orders and remanded, adopting a flexible "primary beneficiary" test with a non-exhaustive list of seven considerations focusing on whether the intern or employer is the primary beneficiary of the relationship.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Glatt and Footman are "employees" under the FLSA/NYLL	Employer received immediate advantage; interns should be treated as employees when employer benefits	Use a primary-beneficiary test weighing totality of circumstances; employer not necessarily required to pay if intern primarily benefits	Vacated summary judgment; adopted a flexible primary-beneficiary test and remanded for further factfinding
Whether Antalik’s New York Rule 23 class should be certified	Common proof (e.g., policy of replacing paid workers with interns) shows predominance of common issues	Employment-status inquiry is individualized; variations across divisions/departments defeat predominance	Vacated class certification; individualized inquiries predominate under new legal standard
Whether nationwide FLSA collective should be conditionally certified	Modest showing that interns were victims of a common policy supports conditional certification at step one	Wide variation across internships (jurisdictional and programmatic) undermines similarity	Vacated conditional certification; plaintiffs failed to show interns were similarly situated under the newly articulated test

Velez v. Sanchez, 693 F.3d 308 (2d Cir. 2012) (summary judgment and FLSA employee-status framework)
Zheng v. Liberty Apparel Co., 355 F.3d 61 (2d Cir. 2003) (NYLL construed like FLSA employee definition)
Walling v. Portland Terminal Co., 330 U.S. 148 (U.S. 1947) (trainee/intern analysis informing unpaid-worker exceptions)
Barrentine v. Arkansas-Best Freight Sys., Inc., 450 U.S. 728 (U.S. 1981) (workers cannot waive FLSA minimum-wage rights)
Tony & Susan Alamo Found. v. Sec’y of Labor, 471 U.S. 290 (U.S. 1985) (limits on exceptions to FLSA coverage)
Barfield v. N.Y.C. Health & Hosps. Corp., 537 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 2008) (economic-reality test; flexible inquiry)
Myers v. Hertz Corp., 624 F.3d 537 (2d Cir. 2010) (two-step FLSA collective-certification framework)
In re U.S. Foodservice Inc. Pricing Litig., 729 F.3d 108 (2d Cir. 2013) (Rule 23 predominance standard)