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.
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