Jochim v. Jean Madeline Education Center of Cosmetology, Inc.

Citations: 98 F. Supp. 3d 750; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45663; 2015 WL 1565827Docket: Civil Action No. 13-6564

Court: District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania; April 8, 2015; Federal District Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Defendant Jean Madeline Education Center of Cosmetology, Inc., operating as The Jean Madeline Aveda Institute, has filed a motion for summary judgment in response to a lawsuit by plaintiff Bogumila Jochim. Jochim, a graduate of the institute, alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law, asserting she should have been compensated for work performed in the clinic during her studies. Jean Madeline contends that students are not classified as employees under the FLSA. The court holds jurisdiction over Jochim's FLSA claim under 28 U.S.C. 1331 and over her state law claim under 28 U.S.C. 1367.

The memorandum outlines the standards for summary judgment, as per Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, which allows a party to seek judgment if there is no genuine dispute regarding material facts. The moving party must demonstrate the absence of such a dispute, and if successful, the burden shifts to the non-moving party to show that genuine issues exist. A genuine issue is defined as one where sufficient evidence could lead a reasonable juror to side with the opposing party. Material facts are those affecting the case outcome under applicable law. The court is limited to determining the existence of factual issues without weighing evidence or making credibility assessments, requiring all inferences to be drawn in favor of the non-moving party. Unsupported assertions or speculation cannot be used to contest summary judgment.

In the factual background, Jean Madeline accepts Jochim’s deposition as true for the summary judgment motion. The Pennsylvania State Board of Cosmetology regulates cosmetology schools and requires that aspiring cosmetologists complete 1,250 hours in a registered school or serve 2,000 hours as an apprentice before taking the licensure exam, which assesses both theoretical knowledge and practical skills.

Cosmetology students may engage in clinical practice on the public, provided they inform clients they are students, as per 63 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. 513. Cosmetology schools cannot charge for student-provided treatments, only for materials used. Schools must clearly indicate their status as educational institutions, not salons, and may advertise under specific restrictions. Students are required to maintain cleanliness in their workstations and assist with general upkeep, though they cannot be tasked with deep cleaning duties. Health and safety regulations for salons must also be observed by these schools.

B. Jochim enrolled at Jean Madeline, a licensed cosmetology school, in January 2012, paying $18,680 for a basic course to fulfill the state-mandated 1,250 hours of training. She was aware there was no job guarantee post-graduation but expected job placement assistance. Upon enrollment, she signed a contract for educational services and received financial aid through federal loans and Pell grants, significantly covering her tuition. Jochim graduated on June 25, 2018, passed the Board’s exam, and became a licensed cosmetologist.

Throughout her education, Jochim completed quizzes, tests, and practical services, receiving credit towards her hours while learning sanitation techniques. Although she found some teaching materials less helpful, she received instruction on guest interactions and consultations. 

Jean Madeline marketed its clinic as a realistic salon environment, where clients would allow students to perform treatments for a fee, after signing a release form. Instructors matched students with clients, who then performed treatments under supervision, with Jochim consulting on procedures and products with the guidance of instructors.

Jochim, a student at Jean Madeline's clinic, experienced challenges in consistently having time for required presentations with instructors due to the clinic's busyness. Although instructors would periodically check on treatments, their inquiries were often brief, and Jochim felt she could ask questions if needed. She believed that mistakes during client treatments would not lead to expulsion, as clients were aware that students were not licensed. While students were disciplined for refusing treatments, those performing poorly were not sent home but were given guidance to improve. 

Jochim was responsible for maintaining a clean work station and claimed additional janitorial, logistical, and clerical duties, though she could not specify any logistical or clerical tasks during her deposition. She felt she should be compensated for her work in the clinic, believing that the environment implied payment for services, despite no official communication from Jean Madeline confirming this. Jochim and her peers were frustrated that they perceived the school profited significantly while they worked for free. When they inquired about compensation, instructors dismissed the topic. Jochim thought her responsibilities at the clinic resembled actual salon work rather than educational practice, leading her to believe she was effectively functioning as an employee. She successfully passed her licensing exams and is now a licensed cosmetologist.

The discussion also addresses whether Jochim and other students qualify as "employees" under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, emphasizing that the determination of employee status is a legal question.

The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) regulates employment and minimum wage, applying only to individuals deemed "employees" under its definition. An "employee" is defined as anyone employed by an employer, while "employ" means to allow or permit work. The Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act closely mirrors the FLSA, with similar definitions, leading Pennsylvania courts to apply federal tests and case law to interpret employment relationships under both statutes.

In determining if Jochim qualifies as an employee of Jean Madeline, the analysis considers that the FLSA covers trainees or apprentices if they are compensated for their work. However, not all training arrangements establish an employer-employee relationship. Courts interpret the FLSA broadly to uphold minimum worker standards, but economic realities dictate whether an individual is considered an employee. The determination relies on the totality of circumstances rather than isolated factors. Six non-exclusive factors guide this evaluation: 1) the employer's control over work performance; 2) the employee's potential for profit or loss based on managerial skill; 3) investment in equipment or materials; 4) the skill required for the service rendered; 5) the permanence of the working relationship; and 6) whether the service is integral to the employer's business. Overall, the relationship's economic reality and dependence on the employer are critical in assessing employment status.

The economic realities test, as established in Martin and explained in Haybarger, is applied to assess the relationship between Jean Madeline and Jochim based on six factors. 

1. **Control**: Jean Madeline instructors controlled the work environment by assigning clients and treatments, providing guidance, and intervening when necessary, but they did not dismiss students for poor performance, instead offering instructional support.

2. **Opportunity for Profit or Loss**: Jochim could receive tips but had no control over billing practices. Her performance did not affect her status as a student, as assignments were made based on client availability and student presence, although she noted being favored for coloring tasks due to her skill.

3. **Investment in Equipment**: Jean Madeline supplied all necessary facilities and materials, and Jochim was required to pay tuition that included a fee for equipment, which she could not purchase independently.

4. **Special Skill**: Jochim was permitted to practice after completing 300 hours of classroom training and passing required tests, indicating that only the completion of her training was necessary to proceed in the program.

5. **Permanence of Relationship**: Jochim attended Jean Madeline from January 2012 to June 2013, with no guarantee of post-graduation employment, although there was some support expected in job placement.

6. **Integral Part of Business**: Jochim argued that Jean Madeline profited from its clinic, while Jean Madeline claimed the clinic operated at a loss, asserting that its main focus was on educational services.

After evaluating these factors, none decisively indicated that Jochim was an employee under the FLSA. Instead, she was classified as a student engaged in a practical training environment that simulated a salon setting. The only factor potentially supporting employee status was the claim regarding the clinic's profitability, which was contested by Jean Madeline.

Jochim's assertion and supporting expert report do not establish an employment relationship with Jean Madeline, a cosmetology school that provides a clinic for students to practice skills required by Pennsylvania law. Jochim's tuition included fees for a student kit, which she was responsible for maintaining, reflecting her status as a student rather than an employee. After completing 300 hours of instruction, Jochim was allowed to perform clinical tasks under supervision, a standard practice in educational programs. Concerns about her level of supervision or dissatisfaction with assignments do not create an employment relationship. Jochim was required to maintain cleanliness in her work area, consistent with educational training, and she could not identify any tasks outside of permissible sanitation duties. Her performance was evaluated based on client satisfaction criteria, but she was not disciplined for work quality and remained under instructor oversight. Jochim paid Jean Madeline for education to prepare for the cosmetology licensing exam, mirroring real-world salon experiences. Although Jean Madeline charged for student services, this does not influence the determination of an employment relationship under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The transient nature of Jochim's educational relationship, lack of guaranteed employment post-graduation, and Jean Madeline’s profit from the program do not change the economic reality of their relationship. Jochim’s belief that she should have been compensated does not qualify her as an employee under the FLSA.

Jochim claimed she was misled regarding potential payment for her work at the Jean Madeline clinic, asserting that no instructor or staff indicated she would be compensated. The clinic's structure communicated that treatments were performed by students for practice purposes. Jochim's beliefs, based on pre-enrollment statements and discussions with peers, do not alter the economic reality of her relationship with Jean Madeline. She paid tuition for her cosmetology education, which included practical experience at the clinic. The court found that Jochim did not meet the legal definition of an employee under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), leading to no material facts in dispute and allowing for summary judgment in favor of Jean Madeline. Jochim's motion to strike Jean Madeline's expert report was deemed moot since the court did not rely on it for summary judgment. Consequently, the court granted summary judgment to Jean Madeline and denied Jochim's motion to strike, closing the case. The court noted differing interpretations among appellate courts regarding trainee status, but emphasized the application of the economic realities test in this jurisdiction.