Skip to main content

Cosmetology and Hair Design Students are Not Employees...& Therefore Not Entitled to Minimum Wage


Benjamin v. B & H Education, Inc. - United States District Court, Northern District of California


Facts:  Several individuals, Jacqueline Benjamin, Bryan Gonzalez, and Taiwo Koyejo, were students at the Marinello Schools of Beauty, owned by B & H Education.  Benjamin and Koyejo were cosmetology students while Gonzalez was a hair design student.  In order to become a licensed cosmetologist, students must receive hundreds of hours of clinical training.  This training includes hands on work and practicing hair and makeup techniques on actual people at a clinic.  Although patrons of the clinic paid for these hair and makeup services, students were unpaid and did not receive any of this money.

Benjamin, Gonzales, and Koyejo brought suit against B & H on the grounds that they were employees during their time working in the salon and should be paid minimum wage and overtime for their work.  B & H filed a motion for summary judgment on the claim brought by plaintiffs.

Holding:  When the Court looked at the plaintiffs' claim, it applied the "primary beneficiary" test.  In this instance, the Court held that the plaintiffs failed to provide specific evidence that they did not receive an educational benefit from their work.  As a result, the plaintiffs received a vocational benefit from learning the cosmetology craft and having the opportunity to learn in a hands on environment.  

In addition, the plaintiffs failed to provide evidence that a large portion of their time was taken up by non-cosmetology work related to their studies (such as sweeping up the floors of the salon, doing laundry, answering phones, etc).  It is important to note that while the plaintiffs did engage in "small doses" of this type of non-educational work, the Court harped on the fact that it did not take up a majority of the time these plaintiffs were at the salon working.  Had a majority (or even a large portion) of their time been spent doing work that was not related to their cosmetology training, the plaintiffs might have had a stronger claim that they were actually employees and entitled to compensation under the FLSA.  

As well, the fact that the salon charged customers for its hair and makeup services was found by the Court to be independent of its analysis in this matter.  Note that B & H took steps (based upon the facts here) to ensure that the education benefit the students received was not subordinate to the benefits the salon received. 

Judgment:  The Court granted B & H's motion for summary judgment and held that the plaintiffs who were students at the cosmetology school were not employees and therefore were not protected by the FLSA.  Consequently, the Court held that these plaintiffs were not entitled to minimum wage or overtime for their work at the salon. 

The Takeaway:  This case serves as a prime example that unpaid vocational programs can be constructed in such a way that they do not violate the FLSA and other related state wage and hour laws.  This case came down to the fact that the students simply could not establish that a large portion of their time was taken up with non-cosmetology related duties.  As the Court properly held, the evidence demonstrated that these students actually received educational training in return for the work they did.  Even though patrons paid for the services (and the students did not receive any of that money), the vocational training they did receive prevented them from bringing a valid FLSA claim. 

Interesting to note that this Court (in the Ninth Circuit) joins a Second Circuit opinion that reached a similar conclusion.  Might other circuits reach a similar conclusion if this type of case is filed elsewhere?  Depending upon the facts of each case, it is possible...we have two circuits that have given a strong indication of which way they lean.

Majority Opinion Judge:  Judge Chhabria

Date:  October 16, 2015

Opinion:  https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CC4QFjADahUKEwjpnpCzovfIAhUHyT4KHbebBC4&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wagehourblog.com%2Ffiles%2F2015%2F10%2FBenjaminOrder.pdf&usg=AFQjCNEnLP6cvZGhVsUC0dkQ1P6loksDNw&sig2=goCwDz-21igFBhCP4XkiOg&bvm=bv.106379543,d.cWw

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more

Utah Non-Compete Bill Falters in House

Last month, a non-compete bill sponsored by Representative Brian Greene (Republican from Pleasant Grove) & up for vote in the Utah House failed to make it through the Legislature.  The bill sought to ban enforcement of non-competes if they came after a worker was already employed, given no compensation (such as a bonus or promotion) for signing the non-compete, and laid off within six months.  However, by a 22 - 49 vote, the bill was resoundingly defeated after some business groups lobbied to kill the non-compete bill.  One group in particular, The Free Enterprise Utah coalition, argued that the Utah State Legislature should hold off on any changes to non compete laws in the state until a survey about non competes was done among Utah businesses.  Representative Greene had countered this claim and argued that a survey was not needed to show that the current non compete laws in the states allowed many businesses, including some small high tech companies in the state, to per
Post a Comment
Read more