Glatt V. Fox Searchlight

Case: 13-4478 Document: 94 Page: 1 03/28/2014 1189792 159 ( ), 13-4481-cv(CON) 13-4478-cvL United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ERIC GLATT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, ALEXANDER FOOTMAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, EDEN M. ANTALIK, DAVID B. STEVENSON, KANENE GRATTS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, BRIAN NICHOLS, Plaintiffs-Appellees, – v. – FOX SEARCHLIGHT PICTURES INC., FOX ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, INC., Defendants-Appellants. –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK CASE NO. 1:11-CV-6784 (HON. WILLIAM H. PAULEY) BRIEF AND SPECIAL APPENDIX FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS ELISE M. BLOOM NEAL KUMAR KATYAL MARK D. HARRIS MARY HELEN WIMBERLY CHANTEL L. FEBUS FREDERICK LIU AMY F. MELICAN HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP JOSHUA S. FOX 555 13th Street, NW PROSKAUER ROSE LLP Washington, DC 20004 11 Times Square (202) 637-5600 New York, New York 10036 (212) 969-3000 Attorneys for Defendants-Appellants Case: 13-4478 Document: 94 Page: 2 03/28/2014 1189792 159 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1, undersigned counsel states as follows: 1. The parent companies of Defendant-Appellant Fox Searchlight Pictures, Inc. are Fox Entertainment Group, Inc. and Twenty-First Century Fox, Inc. Twenty-First Century Fox, Inc. is a publicly traded corporation. 2. The parent company of Defendant-Appellant Fox Entertainment Group, Inc. is Twenty-First Century Fox, Inc., which is a publicly traded corporation. /s/ Elise M. Bloom Elise M. Bloom i Case: 13-4478 Document: 94 Page: 3 03/28/2014 1189792 159 STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(1), Defendants-Appellants respectfully submit that oral argument will significantly aid the decisional process in these consolidated cases, numbers 13-4478 and 13-4481. Among other reasons, these cases raise an issue of first impression—the proper test for determining whether an intern is an employee entitled to wages under applicable federal and state law— that has divided the district courts within this Circuit, as well as other courts of appeals. This Court has already recognized the importance of the underlying issues when it granted Defendants-Appellants permission to pursue interlocutory appeals under Fed. R. App. P. 23(f) and 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). Accordingly, Defendants-Appellants request that this Court hold oral argument. Defendants- Appellants will file an Oral Argument Statement Form within 14 days after the filing of the last appellee brief as required by Local Rule 34.1(a). ii Case: 13-4478 Document: 94 Page: 4 03/28/2014 1189792 159 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 2 STATEMENT OF ISSUES ....................................................................................... 6 PERTINENT STATUTES AND REGULATIONS .................................................. 6 STATEMENT OF THE CASE .................................................................................. 7 A. Statutory Background ............................................................................ 7 B. Proceedings Below .............................................................................. 10 1. Plaintiffs Eric Glatt and Alexander Footman ........................... 10 2. Plaintiff Eden Antalik ............................................................... 12 3. The District Court’s Decision On Class Certification And Summary Judgment. ................................................................. 16 4. Fox’s Interlocutory Appeals ..................................................... 22 STANDARDS OF REVIEW ................................................................................... 22 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ............................................................................... 24 ARGUMENT ........................................................................................................... 27 I. THE PRIMARY-BENEFICIARY TEST GOVERNS WHETHER AN INTERN IS AN EMPLOYEE UNDER THE FLSA AND THE NYLL. ............................................................................................................ 27 A. An Intern Is Not An “Employee” If He Or She Is The Primary Beneficiary Of The Internship. ............................................................ 28 1. The Primary-Beneficiary Test is Grounded in Portland Terminal. ................................................................................... 28 2. The Primary-Beneficiary Test Is Consistent With Precedent. .................................................................................. 32 3. Under The Primary-Beneficiary Test, A Court Should Consider The Totality Of The Circumstances. ......................... 36 iii Case: 13-4478 Document: 94 Page: 5 03/28/2014 1189792 159 B. Judged Against The Primary-Beneficiary Test, There Is A Genuine Issue Of Material Fact Whether Glatt And Footman Were Employees. ................................................................................. 40 II. THE CERTIFIED CLASS DOES NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF RULE 23. ................................................................. 45 A. Plaintiffs Failed To Identify Common Questions That Could Resolve An Issue Central To Liability For Each Class Member “In One Stroke.” .................................................................................. 46 1. The Supposedly Common Questions Identified By The District Court Are Legally Insufficient Under Dukes To Support A Finding Of Commonality. ....................................... 47 2. Antalik Did Not Meet Her Burden To Establish Commonality. ............................................................................ 50 B. The District Court’s Predominance Analysis Was Patently Insufficient And Flawed. ..................................................................... 53 1. The District Court Did Not Apply The Correct Legal Standard. ................................................................................... 53 2. Antalik Did Not Meet Her Burden To Establish Predominance. ........................................................................... 55 III. THE COLLECTIVE ACTION WAS IMPROPERLY CERTIFIED UNDER THE FLSA. ..................................................................................... 57 A. After Discovery, Plaintiffs Should Be Required To Meet A Heightened Burden Of Proof To Demonstrate Certification Of An FLSA Collective Action Is Appropriate. ....................................... 57 B. The District Court Failed To Apply An Appropriately Heightened Standard To Antalik’s Post-Discovery Certification Motion. ................................................................................................ 60 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 62 iv Case: 13-4478 Document: 94 Page: 6 03/28/2014 1189792 159 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) CASES Abrams v. Interco Inc., 719 F.2d 23 (2d Cir. 1983) (Friendly, J.) ........................................................... 23 Barfield v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 537 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 2008) ..................................................................... 9-10, 32 Blair v. Wills, 420 F.3d 823 (8th Cir. 2005) .................................................................. 33, 36, 44 Brock v. Superior Care, Inc., 840 F.2d 1054 (2d Cir. 1988) ....................................................................... 32, 39 Cano v. DPNY, Inc., 287 F.R.D. 251 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) .......................................................................... 7 Carter v. Dutchess Cmty. Coll., 735 F.2d 8 (2d Cir.1984) .................................................................................... 39 Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 133 S. Ct. 1426 (2013) .................................................................................. 53-54 Cuevas v. Citizens Fin. Grp., Inc., 526 F. App’x 19 (2d Cir. 2013) .................................................................... 53, 57 Donovan v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 686 F.2d 267 (5th Cir. 1982) .............................................................................. 34 Espenscheid v. DirectSat USA, LLC, 705 F.3d 770 (7th Cir. 2013) (Posner, J.) ..................................................... 27, 59 Goldberg v. Whitaker House Coop., Inc., 366 U.S. 28 (1961) .......................................................................................... 9, 32 Herman v. RSR Sec. Servs. LTD., 172 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 1999) ......................................................................... 39, 40 v Case: 13-4478 Document: 94 Page: 7 03/28/2014 1189792 159 In re Initial Pub. Offerings Sec. Litig., 471 F.3d 24, decision clarified on rehearing in other part, 483 F.3d 70 (2d Cir. 2006) ................................................................................. 23 In re Literary Works in Elec. Databases Copyright Litig., 654 F.3d 242 (2d Cir. 2011) ............................................................................... 23 Kaplan v. Code Blue Billing & Coding, Inc., 504 F. App’x 831 (11th Cir. 2013), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 618 (2013) .......................................................................................... 35 McLaughlin v. Ensley, 877 F.2d 1207 (4th Cir. 1989) ................................................................ 34, 36, 37 Mihalik v. Credit

Load more