UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED judgment district AFFIRMED

Tracey appeals judgment States District for Eastern District New York (Feuerstein, J.) dismissing for wages under New York Labor Law Rule 12(c) motion for judgment pleadings. At ruling York Labor Law Fox Searchlight Pictures, Inc., (2d 2015). assume parties’ familiarity underlying facts, procedural history, issues presented review. part time student Long Island University’s Master Social Work (“MSW”) program during year. As part *3 program, Long Island University (“LIU”) placed Sandler Bayview Manor South Point Plaza Nursing Rehabilitation Center (“Bayview Manor”) supervision of Joseph Benden. Sandler alleges performed only “secretarial tasks” “grunt work,” such as “filing, typing, photocopying, fetching food, wheeling patients, etc.,” nearly nothing of value. After Sandler complained about quality of a February 28, 2014 memorandum, dismissed from expelled from LIU. Sandler later reinstated LIU, but not course year long a refund of tuition.

In return internship, alleges benefit services, which otherwise have been performed by a employee, well as LIU. She alleged benefited through tuition continued accreditation (which turn supported higher tuition). brought claims pursuant both Fair Labor Standards Act

(“FLSA”) York Labor Law (“NYLL”). district court invoked supplemental jurisdiction pursuant U.S.C. § hear latter claim. now appeals only district dismissal claim, which raises we jurisdiction hear appeal on a law claim when federal claim conferred supplemental jurisdiction has been appealed. We we do.

“The scope a federal court ʹ s jurisdictional power [] does fluctuate fate a federal trial appeal, exists if federal claim initially had substance sufficient confer subject matter jurisdiction court.” Intern Holdings, Inc. v. Wharf, F.3d (10th Cir. (citation quotation omitted); also Hatch Town Middletown, n.2 (1st (same). rely Gelboim Bank America Corp., S. Ct. (2015), which held U.S.C. § gives appeals jurisdiction over all final decisions district courts, district court dismisses only single case been consolidated other actions multidistrict litigation: “A final decision disassociates itself case. . [T]he statute’s *4 core application rulings terminate action.” Id. (citations and quotation marks omitted). Notwithstanding appeal the NYLL claim only, the granting the defendants’ motions dismiss final order terminated the action below. Accordingly, the has jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant U.S.C. § 1291.

We review the grant motion dismiss on the pleadings de novo, Karedes v. Ackerley Group, Inc., F.3d (2d Cir. 2005), “accepting all factual allegations in the complaint as true, drawing all reasonable inferences in plaintiff’s favor,” Velez Sanchez, F.3d (2d Cir. (citation quotation marks omitted). “To survive Rule 12(c) motion, complaint must contain sufficient factual matter relief plausible its face.” Kirkendall Halliburton, Inc., F.3d (2d (citation quotation omitted). construe definition employee as “same substance” as FLSA definition. Glatt, F.3d 534. To determine whether employee compensation FLSA NYLL, we apply primary beneficiary test: primary beneficiary test three salient features. First, it focuses

what intern receives exchange his work. Second, it accords courts flexibility examine economic reality as it exists between intern employer. Third, it acknowledges intern ‐ employer relationship should analyzed same manner standard employer relationship intern enters into relationship receiving vocational benefits are necessarily expected all forms employment (though such product experience job). Glatt, (citations omitted). further instructs consider seven non exhaustive factors

determining FLSA NYLL: clearly understand

there is no compensation. Any promise compensation, express implied, suggests the intern is ‐‐ vice versa. 2. The extent to which the internship provides training would similar to which given educational environment, including the clinical other hands training provided by institutions.

3. The extent to which the internship is tied to the intern ʹ s formal education program by integrated coursework the receipt academic credit. 4. The extent to which the internship accommodates the intern ʹ s academic commitments corresponding calendar.

5. The extent which internship ʹ s duration limited period which provides intern beneficial learning. 6. extent which intern ʹ s complements, rather than displaces, paid employees while providing significant intern. 7. understand conducted without entitlement job conclusion internship.

Glatt, 37.

In applying these non exhaustive factors, “weigh[] balanc[e]” totality circumstances. Id. “No factor dispositive every need point same direction court minimum wage.” Id. Furthermore, “because touchstone this analysis economic reality relationship, elect . consider evidence about program whole rather than experience specific intern.” Id. (quotation omitted).

Sandler argues that determining a worker an of fact ‐ intensive inquiry requiring discovery. She therefore requests that vacate dismissal and remand case discovery. The first, second, third factors weigh in favor of finding that

Sandler was intern. There was no of compensation: Amended Complaint states that “LIU required that, beginning in second year school, students, including Ms. Sandler, complete internship.” App. 218 (Am. Compl. ¶ (emphasis added). Sandler also contends that internship provided her “nearly nothing value.” However, pleadings show that Sandler training during her internship: she was assigned one individual client at received group assignment; she participated in integrated coursework in form “field work class”; her internship responsibilities included writing three “process recordings” per week that described her experiences social intern. App. 231 ‐ 32 (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 53, 66 ‐ 67). Finally, Amended Complaint makes clear she academic credit toward her MSW degree had performed satisfactory manner. App. 218 19 (Am. Comp. ¶ 25); Lucia Vlad Berindan NYC Metro. Trans. Auth., No. cv (VEC), 2016 WL *8 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. (“It unfortunate, if true, Plaintiff learned nothing during her true, it does erase fact toward her degree virtue internship.”). fourth, fifth, seventh factors also weigh favor finding Sandler was intern. duration coincided limited LIU’s calendar “during fall, semester part spring, semester.” App. (Am. Compl. ¶ 2). worked approximately hours per week September December approximately hours per week January until her termination March year. App. (Am. Compl. ¶ 49). It undisputed never promised position upon completion internship. App. (Am. Compl. ¶ 49). argues sixth weighs favor

was required perform displaced work secretary assistant failed provide significant educational benefits. sixth factor favor plaintiff when an merely passes drudge work interns, that is not dispositive: specifically acknowledges that employers could an immediate advantage interns. See at ‐ Moreover, Amended Complaint acknowledges did perform complementary she received significant benefits, set out above. best can said sixth wash. argues discovery needed flesh out totality circumstances: namely, benefits its relationship monetary amount have expended have perform Sandler’s work. However, so long “as relationship qualities bona fide internship, providing vocational real ‐ world setting, can primary beneficiary relationship even activities provide direct benefit employer.” Mark Gawker Media LLC, No. cv (AJN), WL *7 *8 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 2016); Vlad Berindan, WL *8 (finding primary beneficiary when she necessary degree, though displaced employee). Accordingly, plausibly plead under analysis set out Glatt; therefore failed relief proceed discovery. considered remaining arguments they are without merit. For foregoing reasons, judgment AFFIRMED , costs borne respective parties. THE COURT:

CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK