Glatt v. Fox Searchlight Pictures, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2016 · Corporations

Updated August 22, 2026

CorporationsFLSAUnpaid internshipsEmployee statusClass certificationCollective actionsNYLLinterns

Facts

Glatt and Footman worked as unpaid interns on the film Black Swan, performing tasks such as copying, filing, running errands, answering phones, taking lunch orders, making deliveries, and other office support work. Glatt was enrolled in a non-degree graduate program and received no credit for his internship; Footman was not enrolled in a degree program during his internship. Antalik worked as an unpaid publicity intern in Fox Searchlight's New York corporate office while enrolled in a degree program that required an internship, and although she was supposed to receive academic credit, she did not actually receive it. Plaintiffs claimed Fox improperly treated them as unpaid interns rather than employees entitled to minimum wage and overtime.

Issue

Under what circumstances is an unpaid intern an "employee" entitled to compensation under the FLSA and NYLL? Relatedly, did the district court use the correct standard to decide Glatt's and Footman's status, and did Antalik show sufficient common proof to support Rule 23 class certification and conditional certification of a nationwide FLSA collective?

Rule

The proper inquiry is whether the intern or the employer is the primary beneficiary of the relationship. Courts must apply a flexible, totality-of-the-circumstances primary beneficiary test guided by non-exhaustive factors: (1) whether both sides clearly understand there is no expectation of compensation; (2) whether the internship provides training similar to an educational environment; (3) whether it is tied to the intern's formal education by coursework or academic credit; (4) whether it accommodates academic commitments by corresponding to the academic calendar; (5) whether its duration is limited to the period of beneficial learning; (6) whether the intern's work complements rather than displaces paid employees while providing significant educational benefits; and (7) whether both sides understand there is no entitlement to a paid job at the end. No one factor is dispositive, every factor need not point the same way, and courts may consider other relevant evidence bearing on the economic reality of the relationship.

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Boston, Maya Patel spent one semester as an unpaid intern at Harbor Slate Publishing, a for-profit company. She received academic credit through Northeastern Bay College, attended weekly training workshops tied to a faculty seminar, worked around her class schedule, and shadowed editors; although she occasionally formatted manuscripts, paid staff continued doing the core production work.

Under the governing standard, which conclusion is most likely?

Explanation. The proper inquiry is whether the intern or the employer is the primary beneficiary of the relationship. Relevant factors include no expectation of compensation, training similar to an educational environment, integration with formal education through coursework or academic credit, accommodation of the academic calendar, limited duration, and work that complements rather than displaces paid employees while providing educational benefits. Here, most factors point toward Maya as the primary beneficiary, even though the employer derived some benefit. The court rejected any rigid rule that any immediate advantage to the employer automatically creates employee status, and it also rejected a requirement that every factor favor non-employee status. (Derived from Glatt v. Fox Searchlight Pictures, Inc. (n.d.).)