Volpe v. American Language Communication Center, Inc.
200 F. Supp. 3d 428
S.D.N.Y.2016Background
- Volpe was an ESL teacher at American Language Communication Center, Inc. (ALCC) from ~2004–July 2014; he was paid only for in-class hours and alleged unpaid out-of-class work (preparing, grading, meetings) that reduced his effective wage below minimum and made him eligible for overtime.
- ALCC is a New York City private English-language school licensed by the New York State Education Department and accredited by the Commission on English Language Accreditation (CEA), which the U.S. Department of Education recognizes.
- Plaintiff sued under the FLSA (minimum wage and overtime) and New York Labor Law (minimum wage, overtime, notice/recordkeeping, and wage statements). Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), invoking the FLSA professional-employee exemption for teachers.
- The central legal question was whether ALCC qualifies as an "educational establishment" under DOL regulations such that teachers are exempt from the FLSA’s minimum-wage and overtime protections.
- The court took judicial notice of ALCC’s licensure, accreditation, and website materials and considered regulatory guidance and analogous factors courts use to determine whether an organization is an educational institution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the FLSA professional-employee exemption applies | Volpe: ALCC is not an "educational establishment," so the teacher exemption does not apply and FLSA claims stand | ALCC: As a licensed and accredited language school, ALCC is an "educational establishment," so teacher exemption bars FLSA claims | The court held ALCC is an "educational establishment" and Volpe is exempt; FLSA claims dismissed with prejudice |
| Whether the court should retain NYLL claims after dismissal of federal claims | Volpe: State-law wage claims should proceed in federal court | ALCC: Having won on federal claims, the court should decline supplemental jurisdiction over NYLL claims | The court declined supplemental jurisdiction and dismissed NYLL claims without prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Trs. of Upstate N.Y. Eng’rs Pension Fund v. Ivy Asset Mgmt., 131 F. Supp. 3d 103 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (Rule 12(b)(6) standard discussion)
- Holmes v. Grubman, 568 F.3d 329 (2d Cir. 2009) (pleading and inference principles on motion to dismiss)
- Burch v. Pioneer Credit Recovery, Inc., 551 F.3d 122 (2d Cir. 2008) (procedural standards on Rule 12(b)(6))
- Faber v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 648 F.3d 98 (2d Cir. 2011) (courts need not accept legal conclusions as facts)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (application of Twombly plausibility standard)
- Chen v. Major League Baseball Props., Inc., 798 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 2015) (employer bears burden to establish FLSA exemption; exemption may be decided on 12(b)(6) when apparent on face of complaint)
- Mullins v. City of New York, 653 F.3d 104 (2d Cir. 2011) (allocation of burden for FLSA exemptions)
- Staehr v. Hartford Fin. Servs. Grp., 547 F.3d 406 (2d Cir. 2008) (judicial notice and matters not considered outside the pleadings)
- Valencia ex rel. Franco v. Lee, 316 F.3d 299 (2d Cir. 2003) (factors for declining supplemental jurisdiction)
- Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343 (1988) (pendent jurisdiction doctrine favoring remand/declining jurisdiction)
- Gonzales v. New England Tractor Trailer Training Sch., 932 F. Supp. 697 (D. Md. 1996) (example of a post-secondary career program analysis)
- Astor v. United States, 79 Fed. Cl. 303 (2007) (factors relevant to whether an organization is an educational institution)