Background - Hearst ran unpaid, for-credit internship programs across its magazines; interns applied knowing internships were unpaid and required prior approval for college credit. - Five named plaintiffs interned at Hearst (fashion-related roles); their experiences varied from meaningful vocational learning to repetitive, menial tasks with limited supervision. - Interns received varying academic credit outcomes: some obtained credit, some did not (Wagster was denied credit; Wang did not pursue awarded continuing-education credit). - Plaintiffs sued under the FLSA and NYLL claiming they were employees entitled to wages; district court granted summary judgment for Hearst after applying the Glatt “primary beneficiary” test. - On appeal, the Second Circuit reviewed de novo whether interns were employees under the FLSA by weighing seven Glatt factors under the totality of circumstances. ### Issues | Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held | |---|---|---|---| | Whether interns are "employees" under the FLSA (primary-beneficiary test) | Interns contended Glatt factors (esp. training and displacement) show they were employees and summary judgment inappropriate due to mixed inferences | Hearst argued factors (no expectation of pay/job, academic credit requirement, academic calendar alignment, vocational training) favor internship status, permitting summary judgment | Court affirmed: balancing Glatt factors under undisputed facts, interns are not employees under the FLSA | | Weight of expectation-of-payment and job-entitlement factors | Plaintiffs said such understandings cannot waive FLSA rights and should carry little weight | Hearst emphasized clear, unambiguous unpaid internship communications and lack of promise of employment | Court held these factors strongly support non-employee status and are important to economic-reality analysis | | Scope of “training” under factor two (whether practical on-the-job skill counts) | Plaintiffs urged a narrow view limited to classroom-like instruction; argued Hearst’s on-the-job tasks were inadequate training | Hearst and court argued Glatt contemplates vocational, hands-on training and practical skill development as legitimate educational benefit | Court held practical, on-the-job skills count; factor weighed slightly for Hearst given some deficiencies but overall provided vocational benefit | | Displacement (factor six): whether interns displaced paid employees | Plaintiffs argued interns performed regular employee tasks, so factor favors them | Hearst acknowledged interns did productive work but argued complementary role and supervision meant no dispositive displacement | Court found factor favored interns but was not dispositive; overall balance still favored Hearst | ### Key Cases Cited Walling v. Portland Terminal Co., 330 U.S. 148 (Sup. Ct. 1947) (FLSA employee status depends on economic reality) Glatt v. Fox Searchlight Pictures, Inc., 811 F.3d 528 (2d Cir. 2016) (adopts seven-factor primary-beneficiary test for unpaid internships) Barfield v. N.Y.C. Health & Hosps. Corp., 537 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 2008) (employee status is a flexible, totality-of-circumstances inquiry) Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (Sup. Ct. 1986) (summary judgment requires no genuine dispute of material fact) * Brock v. Superior Care, Inc., 840 F.2d 1054 (2d Cir. 1988) (court may resolve FLSA status on summary judgment where appropriate)