Nesbitt v. FCNH, Inc.

908 F.3d 643
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
DecidedNovember 9, 2018
Docket17-1084
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 908 F.3d 643 (Nesbitt v. FCNH, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Nesbitt v. FCNH, Inc., 908 F.3d 643 (10th Cir. 2018).

Opinion

KELLY, Circuit Judge.

Plaintiff-Appellant Rhonda Nesbitt is a former massage therapy student who attended a for-profit vocational school operated by Defendants-Appellees ("Steiner"). Ms. Nesbitt, on behalf of a class of former students, brought suit claiming the students qualified as employees of Steiner under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 - 219, and alleging Steiner violated the FLSA by failing to pay minimum wage. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Steiner, holding that the students were not employees of the schools under the FLSA. See Nesbitt v. FCNH, Inc. , 217 F.Supp.3d 1288 , 1298 (D. Colo. 2016). Our jurisdiction arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm.

*645 Background

Steiner operated for-profit vocational schools in multiple states. 1 Aplt. App. 6-7; 2 Aplt. App. 129. Steiner schools' curriculum included classroom and clinical education required for one to become licensed as a massage therapist. 2 Aplt. App. 130-31. The clinical component included approximately 100, fifty-minute massages, which counted toward the minimum clinical hours necessary for students to acquire their state licenses. Id. at 131-32 . The massages were performed at Steiner facilities on members of the public, who paid discounted rates for the massages. Id. at 132 . Because the Steiner facilities did not have rooms dedicated to massage training, the students would clear classrooms of desks and chairs and erect massage tables surrounded by privacy curtains for clinical training. 4 Aplt. App. 474-75, 482-83. Each student would lead his or her client to a booth that included a massage table and chair with enough space for the student to make a circuit around the massage table and perform the massage. Id. at 475-76 . While the massages took place, there ostensibly were clinic managers and teaching assistants on site to supervise the students and provide feedback on their massages. 2 Aplt. App. 131-32. In theory, these supervisors were available to answer questions from students and to facilitate the clinic's operations. Id. The parties dispute the extent to which these supervisors actually provided feedback or answered questions during the clinic. 1 Compare Aplt. Br. at 24-26, with Aplee. Br. at 24-26. After the students completed their massages, the clients were asked to provide feedback on the massages they received, id. at 132 , though the parties dispute how often these clients actually completed their feedback forms and how often feedback was given to students. Compare Aplt. Br. at 28, with Aplee. Br. at 27. Following each massage, students would lead their client out and prepare their workspace for the next client. See, e.g. , 4 Aplt. App. 438, 442-43, 447. They would typically repeat this process for five clients each clinical day. See, e.g. , id. at 443, 447, 454 . Ms. Nesbitt alleges Steiner profited from the clinics with the students as free labor. Aplt. Br. at 31.

Rhonda Nesbitt brought her class-action suit under the FLSA in the District of Colorado on April 7, 2014. 2 1 Aplt. App. 1. Steiner moved to compel arbitration of the claims and to prohibit litigation of the issues as a class. Id. at 39-53 . The district court denied that motion, Nesbitt v. FCNH, Inc. , 74 F.Supp.3d 1366 , 1375 (D. Colo. 2014), and this court affirmed. Nesbitt v. FCNH, Inc. , 811 F.3d 371 , 381 (10th Cir. 2016).

On remand, the district court addressed the issue of whether Ms. Nesbitt and the *646 students she seeks to represent qualified as employees under the FLSA. The district court found they did not. Nesbitt , 217 F.Supp.3d at 1298 . The district court determined that the six factors announced in Reich v. Parker Fire Protection District , 992 F.2d 1023 (10th Cir. 1993), when considered in their totality, resulted in a finding that the students were not employees of Steiner. Nesbitt , 217 F.Supp.3d at 1294 .

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Mark Fochtman v. Hendren Plastics, Inc.
47 F.4th 638 (Eighth Circuit, 2022)
Brandi McKay v. Miami-Dade County
36 F.4th 1128 (Eleventh Circuit, 2022)
Montoya v. CRST Expedited, Inc.
D. Massachusetts, 2019

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
908 F.3d 643, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nesbitt-v-fcnh-inc-ca10-2018.