McLaughlin v. Ensley’s Empirical Analysis
877 F.2d 1207 · 1989
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently June 2022
7 federal appellate · 2 district ·
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 201 (American Samoa Labor Standards Amendments of 1956) · 29 U.S.C. § 203 · 29 U.S.C. § 214
Relies on Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Anderson v. City of Bessemer City · Tony and Susan Alamo Foundation v. Secretary of Labor · Amadeo v. Zant · Walling v. US
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“... this court has concluded that the general test used to determine if an employee is entitled to the protections of the Act is whether the employee or employer is the primary beneficiary of the trainee’s labor.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Whether trainees or students are employees of an employer under the Act will depend upon all of the circumstances surrounding their activities on the premises of the employer. If all of the following criteria apply, the trainees or students are not employees within the meaning of the Act: (1) the training, even though it includes actual operation of the facilities of the employer, is similar to that which would be given in a vocational school; (2) the training is for the benefit of the trainees or students; (3) the trainees or students do not displace regular employees, but work under their close observation; (4) the employer that provides the training derives no immediate advantage from the activities of the trainees or students; and on occasion his operations may actually be impeded; (5) the trainees or students are not necessarily entitled to a job at the conclusion of the training period; and (6) the employer and the trainees or students understand that the trainees are not entitled to wages for the time spent in training.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“the Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division has developed a test listing six criteria for determining whether trainees are employees within the meaning of FLSA.... It provides: Whether trainees are employees under the Act, according to the WH Administrator, will depend upon all the circumstances surrounding their activities on the premises of the employer. If all six of the following criteria apply, the trainees are not employees within the meaning of the Act: * The training, even though it includes actual operation of the facilities of the employer, is similar to that which would be given in a vocational school[.] * The training is for the benefit of the trainee[.] * The trainees do not displace regular employees, but work under close observation!.] * The employer that provides the training derives no immediate advantage from the activities of the trainees and on occasion his operations may actually be impeded!.] * The trainees are not necessarily entitled to a job at the completion of the training period[.] * The employer and the trainees understand that the trainees are not entitled to wages for the time spent in training.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.