98 F. Supp. 3d 750
E.D. Pa.2015Background
- Plaintiff Bogumila Jochim attended and graduated from Jean Madeline Aveda Institute after completing 1,250 required hours and passing Pennsylvania’s cosmetology exam; she paid tuition (partly via federal aid) and received a student kit.
- While enrolled, Jochim performed supervised clinical services on paying members of the public in the school’s clinic, was graded on client-related tasks, and was required to keep her station sanitary; students could not be required to perform certain janitorial tasks under state rules but could assist with cleanup.
- The School advertised a "true salon environment," assigned clients and treatments, supplied facilities, tools, and products, and charged the public for student services (allegedly as part of clinic revenue).
- Jochim sued under the FLSA and Pennsylvania wage law claiming she should have been paid for clinic work; the School moved for summary judgment arguing students are not employees under the FLSA.
- For summary judgment the court accepted plaintiff’s deposition testimony as true, limited the legal question to whether students in the clinic were "employees," and applied the Third Circuit’s economic-realities test.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether cosmetology students working in the school clinic are "employees" under the FLSA | Jochim contends students performed the same tasks as salon employees (client services, retail pitches, cleaning beyond education) and the school profited from the clinic, so students were effectively unpaid employees | Jean Madeline contends the clinic was an educational component: students paid tuition for training, worked under supervision, were graded, used school-provided facilities/equipment, and the relationship was educational not employment | Court held students were not employees under the FLSA; summary judgment for the school granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden shifting principles)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (genuine issue of material fact standard on summary judgment)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (crediting inferences for nonmovant and credibility limits at summary judgment)
- Walling v. Portland Terminal Co., 330 U.S. 148 (trainees/students and FLSA employment analysis)
- Tony & Susan Alamo Found. v. Secretary of Labor, 471 U.S. 290 (scope of FLSA coverage for volunteers/trainees)
- Goldberg v. Whitaker House Coop., Inc., 366 U.S. 28 (economic realities test focus)
- Rutherford Food Corp. v. McComb, 331 U.S. 722 (totality of circumstances approach to employment)
- Martin v. Selker Bros., Inc., 949 F.2d 1286 (Third Circuit six-factor economic-realities test)
- Donovan v. DialAmerica Mktg., Inc., 757 F.2d 1376 (application of economic-realities factors)
- Haybarger v. Lawrence Cnty. Adult Prob. & Parole, 667 F.3d 408 (Third Circuit on economic realities/totality analysis)