Will Judicial Ruling Impact Similar California Labor Lawsuits?

San Francisco, CAThe dismissal of a California labor lawsuit originally brought by beauty school students for unpaid wages may have a bearing on similar lawsuits currently pending.

The crux of Benjamin et al. v. B&H Education Inc. et al lay with an allegation that services performed by students for clients provided by Marinello Schools of Beauty (Marinello) weighted more heavily toward unpaid work, rather than practical training. Three students who brought the lawsuit, identified as plaintiffs Jacqueline Benjamin, Bryan Gonzalez and Taiwo Koyejo, asserted violations against the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and state labor laws in Nevada together with violations against the California labor code.

In sum, the plaintiffs asserted they should have been paid minimum wages and overtime pay according to California and labor law, since customers who benefited from the services performed by the students paid a fee to Marinello.

However, US District Judge Vince Chhabria didn’t see it that way, noting in his dismissal of the putative class action that the plaintiffs had not sufficiently proven or argued that unpaid work they performed was outweighed by the educational benefit they received.

“The evidence provided by the plaintiffs is so meager and vague that it would not allow a reasonable jury to conclude that the schools subordinated the educational function of the clinics in favor of making money,” Judge Chhabria wrote. He noted that students are required to log hundreds of hours’ worth of clinical work to qualify for licenses allowing them to perform cosmetology and hair design in both California and Nevada.

The defendants, in moving to have the putative class action dismissed, argued that performing such services as cutting hair and other services represented for the student a necessary aspect of his or her education conducted in a realistic environment, regardless of whether or not the defendant benefited financially by charging a fee for those services.

Judge Chhabria wrote that in his view, the plaintiffs did not present sufficient evidence to counter the views put forth by the defendant.

Pundits speculate about the impact this ruling might have on similar lawsuits currently percolating in the legal pipelines throughout the country. Earlier this month, LawyersandSettlements brought you the story of another California labor lawsuit that pits beauty school students against Aveda Institute Los Angeles, Cinta Aveda Institute Inc., and Estée Lauder Inc. The cases make similar allegations.

California and labor law attorneys for the Marinello plaintiffs remain undaunted by the dismissal, noting that beyond performing services on paying members of the public, students were required to sell Marinello products, provide cleaning services to the salon and perform receptionist duties, or so it is alleged. In so doing, argue California labor employment law attorneys, plaintiffs helped generate revenue for Marinello and B&H without receiving any compensation in return. Attorneys intend to keep fighting, in order to expose what they reference as a scheme.

The case is Benjamin et al. v. B&H Education Inc. et al., Case No. 3:13-cv-04993, in the US District Court for the Northern District of California.

The Estée Lauder case is Jazlyn Jennings et al. v. Estée Lauder Inc. et al., Case No. BC543276, in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles.