Unpaid Intern Update
In their Labor Relations column, John P. Furfaro and Risa M. Salins analyze recent Second and Eleventh Circuit rulings that provide guidance for unpaid internship programs, particularly where the programs are offered in connection with a related academic program.
October 01, 2015 at 04:40 PM
10 minute read
Unpaid internships historically have been used by employers to allow students to gain experience and potential entry into competitive industries. However, employers have been more and more hesitant to use unpaid interns since the U.S. Department of Labor's 2010 issuance of Fact Sheet #71. The Fact Sheet sets forth six criteria that, according to the Labor Department, must be satisfied in order for a for-profit company to employ an intern without paying a minimum wage, including the controversial requirement that the employer “derives no immediate advantage from the activities of the intern.” DOL, Wage & Hour Div, Fact Sheet #71, Internship Programs Under the FLSA (April 2010), available at http://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/whdfs71.pdf.
In a highly publicized 2013 decision, a federal district court applied the Labor Department's six-part test and ruled the company should have classified and paid a group of former interns who worked on the film “Black Swan” as employees. See Glatt v. Fox Searchlight Pictures, 293 FRD 516 (SDNY 2013). However, in two groundbreaking rulings this past July, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit declined to follow Fact Sheet #71 and instead applied a primary beneficiary test—i.e., whether the intern or the employer is the primary beneficiary of the relationship—to determine an intern's employment status. And in September, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit adopted the Second Circuit's approach and rejected the Labor Department's views as being inappropriate to an assessment of the “modern internship.” With these rulings, which now potentially open the door to certain unpaid internships, we have dedicated this month's column to a review of current law on unpaid internships.
Second Circuit
In the long-awaited decisions in Glatt v. Fox Searchlight, Nos. 13-4478-cv, 13-4481-cv (2d Cir. July 2, 2015), and Wang v. Hearst Corp., No 13-4480-cv (2d Cir. July 2, 2015), the Second Circuit adopted the employer-proposed “primary beneficiary” test to determine whether an unpaid intern should be considered an employee under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL) and thus entitled to compensation.
In both cases, the plaintiffs—unpaid interns working on Fox Searchlight's “Black Swan” movie and at Hearst magazines, respectively—alleged they should have been classified as employees under the FLSA and NYLL and brought claims for, among other things, unpaid wages on a class-wide basis. The district court in Glatt, relying heavily on the Labor Department's six-factor test laid out in Fact Sheet #71, granted summary judgment on the issue that interns were employees and granted the plaintiffs' motions for class and collective action certification.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllRapper 50 Cent Sues NYC Jeweler for $5 Million Over Imitation Necklace, Use of Image
'Substantive Deficiencies': Judge Grants Big Law Motion Dismissing Ivy League Price-Fixing Claims
3 minute readAttorneys Ordered to Apologize to South Philadelphia Residents Following 'Scream Test' Experiment
5 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Dechert partners Andrew J. Levander, Angela M. Liu and Neil A. Steiner have stepped in to defend Arbor Realty Trust and certain executives in a pending securities class action. The complaint, filed July 31 in New York Eastern District Court by Levi & Korsinsky, contends that the defendants concealed a 'toxic' mobile home portfolio, vastly overstated collateral in regards to the company's loans and failed to disclose an investigation of the company by the FBI. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Pamela K. Chen, is 1:24-cv-05347, Martin v. Arbor Realty Trust, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Arthur G. Jakoby, Ryan Feeney and Maxim M.L. Nowak from Herrick Feinstein have stepped in to defend Charles Dilluvio and Seacor Capital in a pending securities lawsuit. The complaint, filed Sept. 30 in New York Southern District Court by the Securities and Exchange Commission, accuses the defendants of using consulting agreements, attorney opinion letters and other mechanisms to skirt regulations limiting stock sales by affiliate companies and allowing the defendants to unlawfully profit from sales of Enzolytics stock. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Andrew L. Carter Jr., is 1:24-cv-07362, Securities and Exchange Commission v. Zhabilov et al.
Who Got The Work
Clark Hill members Vincent Roskovensky and Kevin B. Watson have entered appearances for Architectural Steel and Associated Products in a pending environmental lawsuit. The complaint, filed Aug. 27 in Pennsylvania Eastern District Court by Brodsky & Smith on behalf of Hung Trinh, accuses the defendant of discharging polluted stormwater from its steel facility without a permit in violation of the Clean Water Act. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Gerald J. Pappert, is 2:24-cv-04490, Trinh v. Architectural Steel And Associated Products, Inc.
Who Got The Work
Michael R. Yellin of Cole Schotz has entered an appearance for S2 d/b/a the Shoe Surgeon, Dominic Chambrone a/k/a Dominic Ciambrone and other defendants in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed July 15 in New York Southern District Court by DLA Piper on behalf of Nike, seeks to enjoin Ciambrone and the other defendants in their attempts to build an 'entire multifaceted' retail empire through their unauthorized use of Nike’s trademark rights. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald, is 1:24-cv-05307, Nike Inc. v. S2, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Sullivan & Cromwell partner Adam S. Paris has entered an appearance for Orthofix Medical in a pending securities class action arising from a proposed acquisition of SeaSpine by Orthofix. The suit, filed Sept. 6 in California Southern District Court, by Girard Sharp and the Hall Firm, contends that the offering materials and related oral communications contained untrue statements of material fact. According to the complaint, the defendants made a series of misrepresentations about Orthofix’s disclosure controls and internal controls over financial reporting and ethical compliance. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Linda Lopez, is 3:24-cv-01593, O'Hara v. Orthofix Medical Inc. et al.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250