Case Information
*1 ‐ 2869 ‐ cv v. Am. Commc’n Ctr., et al. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
1 stated term United States of Appeals for Second 2 Circuit, Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, Foley 3 4 Square, City New York, on th day June, two thousand seventeen. 5 PRESENT: ROBERT D. SACK,
6 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,
7 Circuit Judges ,
8 PAUL A. CROTTY,
9 Judge. *
10 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
11 JOHN VOLPE, individually behalf others 12 13 situated,
14 15 Plaintiff ‐ Appellant ,
16 17 ‐ cv 18 AMERICAN LANGUAGE COMMUNICATION
19 CENTER, INC., DBA AMERICAN LANGUAGE
20 COMMUNICATION CENTER, JEAN PACHTER, 21 22 PETER PACHTER,
23 Defendants Appellees.
24 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
25
26 APPELLANT: J OSHUA S. NDROPHY , Michael 27 Faillace & Associates, 28 York,
29
* Paul Crotty, sitting designation. *2 APPELLEES: NDREW M. S PURCHISE (Sean
Malley, the brief
), Littler Mendelson Appeal from judgment the District Court the York (George B. Daniels, ). UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, it is HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, DECREED judgment John Volpe appeals from (Daniels, J.) dismissing his complaint. Volpe argues he other situated teachers are not exempt from Fair Labor Standards Act’s overtime requirements, see U.S.C. § 213(a)(1), because facilities like American Language Communication Center (“ALCC”), where Volpe taught, not “educational establishment[s]” under Department Labor regulations, see C.F.R.
§§ 541.303(a), 541.204(b). assume parties’ familiarity with facts record prior proceedings, to we refer necessary to explain affirm.
In another case involving both his counsel, we recently certain other facilities providing English language instruction were “educational establishment[s]” under 541.204(b). Zoni Ctrs., 2293544, (2d Cir. May 26, 2017). oral *3 argument, Volpe’s counsel conceded that a in would control this appeal, as cases involved same issues except one (in view immaterial) factual distinction regarding date ALCC was accredited. See Oral Arg. Audio at 0:30–2:48. Here, as in Fernandez, “the
pleadings themselves established” was a teacher employed ALCC “‘with primary duty teaching’ in order ‘impart[] knowledge,’” therefore was “teacher an educational establishment.” Fernandez, (quoting 541.303(a)). “Other evidence . . . such [ALCC’s] state licensure national accreditation . . . reinforces conclusion.” Id. have considered Volpe’s remaining arguments conclude they without merit. For foregoing reasons, COURT:
Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk