Authored by Eric Hill
Seyfarth Synopsis: Airline customer service representative denied pay for pre-employment 10-day classroom training program under the FLSA and California Labor Law.
The maxim “it is extremely difficult to find someone to pay you to learn” has been proven again! This must be why we, or at least most of us, eventually leave school to enter the working world.
Meanwhile, the trend in the law is clear:
- Where trainees are truly “learning,” as a precursor to “working,” and are the primary beneficiary of pre-employment training, there is no duty to pay them.
- But, where the trainee’s “on the job” training involves performing work an employee would otherwise perform (to the employer’s financial advantage), the trainee must be paid.
In a January 9, 2017 ruling, Judge Vince Chhabria of the Northern District of California held that a customer service representative for Hawaiian Airlines was not entitled to be paid during a 10-day pre-employment training program that consisted of classroom work and tours of the facilities rather than actual “on-the job” customer service training. The decision is notable for its practical, straightforward analysis regarding when trainees should be paid under federal and California law.
The Court adopted the “primary beneficiary test,” cautioned against a mechanistic application of the six Department of Labor criteria, and granted Hawaiian Airlines summary judgment. (While the lawsuit is a proposed class action, the parties opted to file cross-motions for summary judgment before litigating the class certification question.)
According to the Court, the key question was whether the airline was taking financial advantage of the trainee during the training program by using her to perform work that an employee would otherwise perform. Because the plaintiff did not perform the work of the customer service employees, the Court found no reasonable juror could conclude she was acting as an “employee” during her training course.
The Court noted the classroom instruction and touring were only precursors to performing the work of an employee. The airline did not receive any direct benefit from the training, which taught trainees about FAA regulations, the computer system, and the way the company operated. Because the airline was not using the trainees as “anything close to employees,” the plaintiff was the “primary beneficiary” of the training.
As is the trend, the Court rejected the argument that a trainee is an employee unless the employer can satisfy all six of the DOL’s criteria. Stating that the six criteria are “relevant but not conclusive,” the Court focused instead on whether the trainee or the employer was the “primary beneficiary” of the training. It warned against “mechanistically applying the six criteria,” and called the case “a good illustration” of why “just about every court” has “rejected the Department of Labor’s approach.”
The Court emphasized that the DOL’s criteria seem to be designed for true “on-the-job” training, whereas the plaintiff here was not involved in this type of training. The Court also pointed out there is no difference between the federal and California legal standards for determining whether a worker qualifies as an “employee” during training.
Despite its warnings about reliance on the six DOL criteria, the Court found that application of the criteria would lead to the same result. The criteria are:
- The training, even though it includes actual operation of the facilities of the employer, is similar to that which would be given in a vocational school.
- The training is for the benefit of the trainees.
- The trainees do not displace regular employees, but work under close observation.
- The employer that provides the training derives no immediate advantage from the activities of the trainees; and on occasion his operations may actually be impeded.
- The trainees are not necessarily entitled to a job at the conclusion of the training period.
- The employer and the trainees understand that the trainees are not entitled to wages for the time spent training.
This decision is not the first “training time” case to grant summary judgment to an employer under these circumstances. Despite the positive trend, these cases are highly fact-driven and do not foreclose the possibility that trainees will be deemed to be employees. But they do signal that, where trainees are not performing the work of the employees and are not engaging in traditional work-alongside-the-employees “on the job” training, they do not cross the line from “trainee” to “employee” and need not be paid as a matter of law.