Volpe v. American Language Communication Center, Inc.

Second Circuit

Volpe v. American Language Communication Center, Inc.

692 F. App'x 51

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedJune 5, 2017

DocketNo. 16-2869-cv

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 692 F. App'x 51 (Volpe v. American Language Communication Center, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Volpe v. American Language Communication Center, Inc., 692 F. App'x 51 (2d Cir. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

John Volpe appeals from a judgment of the District Court (Daniels, J.) dismissing his complaint. Volpe argues that he and other similarly situated teachers are not exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act’s overtime requirements, see 29 U.S.C. § 213(a)(1), because facilities like American Language Communication .Center (“ALCC”), where Volpe taught, are not “educational establishment^]” under Department of Labor regulations, see 29 C.F.R. §§ 541.303(a), 541.204(b). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and record of the prior proceedings, to which we refer only as necessary to explain our decision to affirm.

In another case involving both Volpe and his counsel, we recently held that certain other facilities providing English-language instruction were “educational establishment[s]” under 29 C.F.R. § 541.204(b). Fernandez v. Zoni Language Ctrs., Inc., No. 16-1689, 858 F.3d 45, 46, 2017 WL 2293544, at *1 (2d Cir. May 26, 2017). At oral argument, Volpe’s counsel conceded that a decision in Fernandez would control this appeal, as the cases involved the same issues except for one (in our view immaterial) factual distinction regarding the date on which ALCC was accredited. See Oral Arg. Audio at 0:30-2:48. Here, as in Fernandez, “the pleadings themselves established” that Volpe was a teacher employed by ALCC “ “with a primary duty of teaching’ in order to ‘impartí ] knowledge,’ ” and therefore was a “teacher in an educational establishment.” Fernandez, 858 F.3d at 54, 2017 WL 2293544, at *7 (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 541.303(a)). “Other evidence ... such as [ALCC’s] state licensure and national accreditation ... only reinforces that conclusion.” Id.

We have considered Volpe’s remaining arguments and conclude that they are without merit. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.

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

SUMMARY ORDER

John Volpe appeals from a judgment of the District Court (Daniels, J.) dismissing his complaint. Volpe argues that he and other similarly situated teachers are not exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act’s overtime requirements, see 29 U.S.C. § 213(a)(1), because facilities like American Language Communication .Center (“ALCC”), where Volpe taught, are not “educational establishment^]” under Department of Labor regulations, see 29 C.F.R. §§ 541.303(a), 541.204(b). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and record of the prior proceedings, to which we refer only as necessary to explain our decision to affirm.

In another case involving both Volpe and his counsel, we recently held that certain other facilities providing English-language instruction were “educational establishment[s]” under 29 C.F.R. § 541.204(b). Fernandez v. Zoni Language Ctrs., Inc., No. 16-1689, 858 F.3d 45, 46, 2017 WL 2293544, at *1 (2d Cir. May 26, 2017). At oral argument, Volpe’s counsel conceded that a decision in Fernandez would control this appeal, as the cases involved the same issues except for one (in our view immaterial) factual distinction regarding the date on which ALCC was accredited. See Oral Arg. Audio at 0:30-2:48. Here, as in Fernandez, “the pleadings themselves established” that Volpe was a teacher employed by ALCC “ “with a primary duty of teaching’ in order to ‘impartí ] knowledge,’ ” and therefore was a “teacher in an educational establishment.” Fernandez, 858 F.3d at 54, 2017 WL 2293544, at *7 (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 541.303(a)). “Other evidence ... such as [ALCC’s] state licensure and national accreditation ... only reinforces that conclusion.” Id.

We have considered Volpe’s remaining arguments and conclude that they are without merit. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

692 F. App'x 51, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/volpe-v-american-language-communication-center-inc-ca2-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack