minutes for rebuttal if i may please the court the issue before the court this morning is how the primary beneficiary test should be applied to decide the threshold question of whether an employment relationship exists under the l s a i was this court explained in laurel brook the primary beneficiary test is a specific application of the economic reality analysis the courts apply in all contexts to decide whether  employment relationship exists under the l s a and in every application the economic reality test considers the totality of the circumstances of the parties relationship the district court's analysis here  consider the students work in the kitchen housekeeping and in the sanitarium and not other activities such as provisional classroom instruction your honor yes your honor in laurel brook the court considered only the specific vocational activities and not the classroom instruction although it's certainly not clear from real oral book that the question was ever raised as to what the appropriate context the either the business activity or the relationship at various points in the opinion and the business activity analysis comes directly from earlier case law including this this are being challenged but the relationship itself has to be an employment relationship only after an employment relationship is established is it appropriate to then look at the specific past to determine whether their compensable well i'm struggling with that answer because you've already conceded that loral book only a greater students work in the kitchen housekeeping in sanitarium and did not consider in the totality of the circumstances the activities such as challenge activity your honor with regard to the laurel brook itself the is the specific program there was split between four hours in the classroom and then four hours doing of cation elective adiz so i want to be clear to say that what laurel brook considered was the full gamut of the vocational activities the four hours of vocational training and not the four hours of the classroom activity suggesting here whereby certain tasks can be taken out of the vocational context and considered standing on their own instead of being placed within the framework of the entire relationship and i think here the analysis is perhaps best seen in terms of the related context of internships if in an internship challenge case if the employer or if the putative employer is providing classroom based training as well as the educational or as well as the vocational aspect certainly the court would consider in the context of the internship all of the activities including the classroom time the same thing should be true in an integrated vocational context such as this one where the entire purpose of the education is to provide a vocational training which includes both the classroom time and the clinic in so on time court was to say we're not going to consider the classroom time we're only going to consider the time in the salon i believe that the district court's analysis would still fail it would still be incorrect because it fails to consider the specific totality of the circumstances of the time spent in the salon itself it extracts out certain activities before applying the primary beneficiary test and that simply is inconsistent with all the case law in this area the in fact none of the circuits who have addressed this issue have applied that analysis none of them have purported to engage in some sort of segmentation specific to  specific tasks that are challenged by the plaintiffs all of them have considered the full scope of the relationship with the students either in the salon context or also including the classroom context the that approach that's been adopted by other courts is consistent with laurel brook and it's also now been adopted by the department of labor as the national standard for it and forstmann activities consequently your honors we submit that what the court ought to do here is apply the little brook primary beneficiary standard including the various factors that other courts have identified most notably because the on the whole of the relationship the students are plainly the primary beneficiaries even within the so your honor before the temper interruption you asked if it might make more sense to remove the case to the district court to apply the primary beneficiary test as we proposed if the court reaches that conclusion  instead of applying it at this level in the st instance and certainly that is well within the course discretion we believe that the record is such even with the district court's conclusions in this case already that the answer you may i did want to comment specifically with regard to the both the glass factors and then the department of labor standard how it supplements laurel brook in a way that's consistent with the fact that the expectation of compensation is a crucial factor in determining whether an employment relationship exists here there's no question that there was no expectation of compensation but that factor which is so important in another context should also be part of the analysis in the context of determining whether an employment relationship exists in the vocational school context unless this court has further case there's no dispute that lawbook is controlling also whether which party receives the primary benefit of the work that the students are for and then the little the court said that's the correct past and the district court applied it correctly to that analysis is under type and it seems to me the dispute is between whether you can look at a certain category of for that challenge i believe your thing counsel insisted it must be the entire repeat of the relationship and other words if it's if it's a school such as this one you have to include classroom and clin cleaning type or from sanitation and both cases are particularly collins recognised a sanitation worker part of their training now that's very very different from the facts mr we've made we circuits that schumann case passed the question whether that was jade took unfair advantage of the students need to complete their educational program and ultimately found that it had really  district court apply what i would call them all brooke hybrid is something that is not applied by any other sport part of the or if it's consistent with the world and i will say that because of their lower court in this case did specifically look at whether the students received an education and they in the court  the crux of the problem with the plaintiff's approach the donning and tossing cases the other compensable of the of time cases that the plaintiffs are relying on all d presume in employment relationship ready exists that's not the issue here the issue here is whether an employment relationship exists and to decide if a student is in fact an employee you have to look at the totality of the circumstances that's true in this context and that's true in all the other contexts where this question of whether an employment relationship actually exists comes up and we cited a whole slew of cases from the circuit where that issue was addressed in various contexts including with regard to volunteers and independent contractors what the courts do not do in those cases is take a look at the totality of the relationship chop up the relationship into various tasks and say that a person is an employee for the purposes of some tasks and an independent contractor or a volunteer for the purposes of other tasks the same should be true here you can't be both a student and an employee during the same time period in the same location with regard to the same subject matter here the the what the district court did was say that during a given class day given day while this student was in the salon the student was both performing the it was in the relationship of student with regard to cutting hair and the like and then with regard to other activities that were interspersed with that cutting of hair and other educational activities was an employee with regard to certain other tasks that's just not how this analysis works under the economic reality test in all of the other contexts where it applies in it should not be applied that way here consequently applying an all or nothing approach which is consistent with the rest of the case a analysis usually in cases the of course the question of whether a person is an employee isn't disputed but where it's disputed it's an all or nothing determination next i want to turn to whether what the the district court did court also took that the issue what the court did was inconsistent with laurel brook because it separated that relationship into two different sections as opposed to treating the relationship as a whole even if the relationship as a whole is limited to the time spent in the salon as opposed to also encompassing the classroom activity finally i want to turn to the contention  required that for a relationship not to be one of the employment the vocational school or the learning provider had to demonstrate each of the factors if they didn't if they didn't  meet any one of the factors there was an employment relationship the new standard is to balance these factors and the very preamble to the text year shows that the deal well as looking at this as an all or nothing standard unless the court has any further