You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Nesbitt v. FCNH, Inc.

Citations: 217 F. Supp. 3d 1288; 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 157180; 2016 WL 6777827Docket: Civil Action No 14-cv-00990-RBJ

Court: District Court, D. Colorado; November 13, 2016; Federal District Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

This case involves a legal dispute between massage therapy students and the Steiner Education Group (SEG), a vocational school operator. The plaintiffs allege they were employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) during their clinical training, seeking unpaid wages. The defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, which the court granted in part by dismissing the FLSA claim, but denied in part regarding state claims due to insufficient briefing. The court applied the Tenth Circuit's six-factor test from Reich to determine employment status under the FLSA, concluding the plaintiffs were not employees. The court ordered parties to demonstrate why remaining claims should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Plaintiffs also challenged the defendants' arbitration agreement terms, claiming violations of the National Labor Relations Act, but this issue became moot. The court dismissed some plaintiffs and addressed questions about defendants' supervision practices during clinical training. The outcome left the plaintiffs' state law claims pending further jurisdictional determination.

Legal Issues Addressed

Application of Tenth Circuit Precedent

Application: The Court utilizes the Tenth Circuit's six-factor test from Reich to assess employment status under the FLSA.

Reasoning: The six factors, derived from Tenth Circuit precedent in Reich, are used to evaluate whether trainees are considered employees under the FLSA.

Dismissal for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Application: The Court orders parties to show cause why remaining claims should not be dismissed due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction after dismissing the FLSA claim.

Reasoning: The court dismisses the plaintiffs' Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) claim, prompting an order for the parties to demonstrate within 14 days why the remaining claims should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Employee Status

Application: The Court applies a totality of the circumstances test using six factors to determine if plaintiffs are employees under the FLSA.

Reasoning: The focal issue for summary judgment is whether the plaintiffs qualified as employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) during the defendants’ clinical programs.

State Law Claims and Insufficient Briefing

Application: The Court declines to grant summary judgment on state law claims due to insufficient briefing.

Reasoning: However, the Court declines to grant summary judgment on the plaintiffs' state law claims due to insufficient briefing by the parties.

Summary Judgment Standards

Application: The Court grants summary judgment if there is no genuine dispute of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Reasoning: The Court can grant summary judgment if there is no genuine dispute regarding material facts and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.