Sandler v. Benden
16-3218
| 2d Cir. | Nov 13, 2017Background
- Tracey Sandler, an MSW student at Long Island University (LIU) for 2013–14, was placed in an unpaid internship at Bayview Manor (a nursing facility) supervised by Joseph Benden.
- Sandler alleges she performed mainly clerical and menial tasks (filing, typing, fetching food, wheeling patients) and received little educational benefit; she was dismissed from Bayview and expelled from LIU after complaining, later reinstated but received no course credit or tuition refund.
- Sandler sued under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York Labor Law (NYLL); the district court dismissed both claims and Sandler appealed only the NYLL dismissal.
- The district court applied the Second Circuit’s primary-beneficiary test from Glatt to determine whether Sandler was an unpaid intern or an employee entitled to wages.
- The Second Circuit affirmed, holding Sandler plausibly was an intern under the Glatt factors and that the complaint failed to state an NYLL claim; the court also held it had appellate jurisdiction over the appeal despite only the state-law claim being appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appellate jurisdiction over NYLL claim when FLSA claim not appealed | Appeal of NYLL dismissal only should not be heard without appealing the federal claim | District court’s dismissal was a final order; appellate jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 | Court has jurisdiction under § 1291; appeal is proper |
| Whether Sandler was an employee vs. unpaid intern under Glatt primary-beneficiary test | Sandler argues she was an employee: she displaced paid staff, provided benefit to employer, and received no meaningful education | Defendants argue internship provided educational components, academic credit ties, academic calendar timing, and no expectation of pay | Applying Glatt’s seven factors, majority weigh for intern; held Sandler was an intern, not an employee |
| Whether dismissal on the pleadings was premature and discovery required | Sandler contends the inquiry is fact-intensive and discovery is needed to show employer benefit and displacement | Defendants contend pleadings show internship qualities (credit, coursework, calendar) sufficient to decide as a matter of law | Court held complaint failed to plausibly plead employee status; discovery not warranted |
| Weight of factor that intern’s work displaces paid employees | Sandler emphasizes displacement and lack of educational benefit to favor employee status | Defendants note Glatt permits employers to benefit from interns and other factors (credit, training, schedule) favor intern | Sixth factor was essentially neutral (a wash); not dispositive in light of other factors |
Key Cases Cited
- Glatt v. Fox Searchlight Pictures, Inc., 811 F.3d 528 (2d Cir. 2015) (establishes primary-beneficiary test and seven non-exhaustive factors for intern v. employee analysis)
- Gelboim v. Bank of America Corp., 135 S. Ct. 897 (2015) (finality rule under 28 U.S.C. § 1291; district court decisions that terminate an action are appealable)
- United Intern Holdings, Inc. v. Wharf, 210 F.3d 1207 (10th Cir. 2000) (federal jurisdiction persists if the federal claim initially conferred subject-matter jurisdiction)