Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Fox Searchlight and Fox Entertainment brief

Fox Searchlight and Fox Entertainment brief

Ratings: (0)|Views: 39|Likes:
Published by Fortune
The defendant-appellants reply brief in Eric Glatt, et al v. Fox Searchlight and Fox Entertainment in the Second Circuit, the case over unpaid internships
The defendant-appellants reply brief in Eric Glatt, et al v. Fox Searchlight and Fox Entertainment in the Second Circuit, the case over unpaid internships

More info:

Published by: Fortune on Jul 16, 2014
Copyright:Traditional Copyright: All rights reserved

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

09/03/2014

pdf

text

original

 
13-4478-cv
(
L
)
,
13-4481-cv
(
CON
)
 
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)
REPLY BRIEF FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS
E
LISE
M.
 
B
LOOM
 M
ARK
D.
 
H
ARRIS
 C
HANTEL
L.
 
F
EBUS
 A
MY
F.
 
M
ELICAN
 J
OSHUA
S.
 
F
OX
 P
ROSKAUER
OSE
LLP 11 Times Square  New York, New York 10036 (212) 969-3000  N
EAL
UMAR
ATYAL
 M
ARY
H
ELEN
W
IMBERLY
 F
REDERICK
L
IU
 H
OGAN
L
OVELLS
US
 
LLP 555 13th Street, NW Washington, DC 20004 (202) 637-5600
 
 Attorneys for Defendants-Appellants
Case: 13-4478 Document: 139 Page: 1 07/11/2014 1269302 39
 
 
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ....................................................................................... iii INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 1 ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................ 3 I.
 
THE PRIMARY-BENEFICIARY TEST GOVERNS WHETHER AN INTERN IS AN EMPLOYEE UNDER THE FLSA AND THE NYLL. ................................................................................... 3 A.
 
The Primary-Beneficiary Test Is Most Consistent With Established FLSA Jurisprudence. ............................................................ 4 1. The Larger Framework Of FLSA Case Law, Including
Portland Terminal
, Supports The Primary-Beneficiary Test. .............................................................. 4 2. The Vast Majority Of Courts Have Adopted The Primary-Beneficiary Test. ...................................................... 12 3. This Court Should Adopt A Totality Of-The-Circumstances Analysis And Reject The Rigid All-Or-Nothing Approach Of DOL............................................................................................... 16 B.
 
The District Court’s Award of Summary Judgment To Glatt And Footman Should Be Reversed And Remanded. ............................................................................................... 18 II.
 
THE CLASS WAS IMPROPERLY CERTIFIED UNDER RULE 23. ........................................................................................................... 21 A.
 
Commonality Was Not Present. .............................................................. 21 B.
 
The District Court Decision Did Not Come Close to Meeting The Predominance Requirement. .............................................. 25
Case: 13-4478 Document: 139 Page: 2 07/11/2014 1269302 39
 
 
ii
 III.
 
THE FLSA COLLECTIVE WAS IMPROPERLY CERTIFIED. ...................................................................................................... 27 A.
 
This Court Should Apply Rule 23’s Strictures To Post-Discovery FLSA Conditional-Certification Decisions. .......................... 27 B.
 
Irrespective Of The Standard, the District Court Ignored The Significant Differences Among The Collective’s Members .................................................................................................. 28 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................ 30
Case: 13-4478 Document: 139 Page: 3 07/11/2014 1269302 39

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->