617 F. App'x 35
2d Cir.2015Background
- Plaintiffs were unpaid interns at multiple Hearst magazines in New York who sued seeking FLSA and NYLL protections and class certification for interns between Feb 1, 2006 and judgment.
- Plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment arguing they were "employees" because internships conferred immediate advantage to Hearst and Hearst could not satisfy several DOL intern-factor criteria.
- The district court denied partial summary judgment, finding material disputes about the proper standard and application of Department of Labor factors; it also denied class certification for lack of commonality/predominance.
- This interlocutory appeal was argued with Glatt v. Fox Searchlight Pictures, where the Second Circuit articulated a "primary beneficiary" test and a non-exhaustive set of factors to determine intern employment status under the FLSA.
- The Second Circuit vacated the denial of partial summary judgment and remanded for the district court to apply the Glatt standard in the first instance; it affirmed the denial of class certification because intern-status inquiries are highly individualized across departments and positions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether interns are FLSA "employees" for summary judgment | Interns are employees if their work provided immediate advantage to Hearst; alternatively Hearst cannot establish four of six DOL factors as a matter of law | Employment status requires a primary-beneficiary, totality-of-circumstances analysis and factual inquiry; disputes preclude summary judgment | Vacated denial of partial SJ and remanded for district court to apply the Glatt primary-beneficiary test; plaintiffs not entitled to judgment as a matter of law |
| Proper legal standard to determine intern status | Immediate employer benefit or failure to meet DOL factors is dispositive | Use primary-beneficiary totality-of-the-circumstances framework announced in Glatt | District court must apply Glatt factors on remand; may permit new evidence |
| Class certification under Rule 23(b)(3) | Common practices and representative testimony can establish commonality and predominance | Intern experiences varied across 19 Hearst magazines and departments, requiring individualized inquiries | Affirmed denial of class certification: common questions do not predominate; employment-status inquiry is highly individualized |
| Use of representative evidence to prove common policies | Representative testimony can show uniform internship practices decisive on merits | Even if representative, questions tying internships to education, training, and continued work are individual and require case-by-case analysis | Rejected; representative evidence insufficient to overcome individual issues for predominance |
Key Cases Cited
- Glatt v. Fox Searchlight Pictures, Inc., 791 F.3d 376 (2d Cir. 2015) (announcing primary-beneficiary test and non-exhaustive factors for intern status under FLSA)
- Velez v. Sanchez, 693 F.3d 308 (2d Cir. 2012) (standard for reviewing summary judgment rulings)
- Myers v. Hertz Corp., 624 F.3d 537 (2d Cir. 2010) (denial of class certification where resolution requires individualized factual inquiries)
- Parker v. Time Warner Entm’t Co., L.P., 331 F.3d 13 (2d Cir. 2003) (standards for reviewing class certification rulings)