[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 2- 12 01 1 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ D. C. Dock etNo. 9 :1 1- cv -8 10 49 -DMM RISA KAPLAN, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us CODE BLUE BILLING & CODING, INC., LINDA M. YON, Defen da nt s- App el le es .

**   **  **   **  **   **  **   **  ** ** *

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 2- 12 37 6 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ D. C. Dock etNo. 9 :1 1- cv -8 11 79 -DMM Case: 12-12011 Date Filed: 01/22/2013 Page: 1 of 9YANNO BEVACQUA , Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us MAGNETIC MEDICAL MANAGEMENT, INC., Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee.

**   **  **   **  **   **  **   **  ** ** *

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 2- 12 67 9 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ D. C. Dock etNo. 2 :1 1- cv -1 43 84 -DLG LINDA O’ NEILL, ind iv idua ll y an d o n b eh al f of al l o th ers si m il arl y

si tu at ed , Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us EAST FLORIDA EYE INSTITUTE, P.A., a Fl or id a co rp or at io n, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee.

2 Case: 12-12011 Date Filed: 01/22/2013 Page: 2 of 9__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ App eal s fr om

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e So uthe rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (J anua ry 22 , 20 13 ) Befo re TJ OFLAT, PRYOR, andEDMONDSON, Circu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:

Inth is co ns ol id at edap pe al , Pla in ti ffs Ris a Kap la n, Yan no Bev acqua , and Lin daO’ Neil l ch al le ng e th e d is tri ctco urt’s g ran t, i n fa vo r of de fen da nt s, o f su m m ary jud gm en t, d is m is si ng Pla in ti ffs ’ cl ai m s u nd er the Fai r Lab orSta nd ard s Act, 2 9 U.S.C. § § 2 01 -2 16 (“ FLSA”). No rev ers ib le erro r ha s b eensh own ; we affi rm . Pl ai nt iff s wer e en ro ll edas s tu de nt s i n M ed Van ce In st itut e’s Med ic al Bil li ng an d C od in g S pe ci al is t p ro gr am . To gr adua te , Med Van ce re qu ire d a ll stud en ts to co m pl et e an ex te rn sh ip aft er fi ni sh in g t he ir o th er co ur se work . Kapl an , Bev acqua , an d O’Neil l co m

pl et edstud en t ex te rn sh ip s, re sp ect iv el y , at Co de Blu e Bi ll in g & Co ns ul ti ng , Inc . (“ Co de Blu e”), M ag ne ti c Me di cal Man ag em en t, In c. (“ MM M”) ,
3 Case: 12-12011 Date Filed: 01/22/2013 Page: 3 of 9an d Eas t Fl or id a Ey e In st itut e, P.A. (“ EFEI”) (c ol le ct iv el y , “ Defen da nt s” ).

Pl ai nt iff s n ei th er ex pe ct edno r rec ei ve d p aym en t fo r th e work the y pe rfo rm ed du rin g t he ir e xt ern sh ip s. So m et im e aft er co m

pl et in g t he ir e xt ern sh ip s, Pl ai nt iff s ea ch fil eda co m pl ai ntform in im

um wage un de r th e FLSA fo r work the y pe rfo rm eddu rin g th ei r ex te rn sh ip . In es se nc e, Pl ai nt iff s ar gu edth at-- g iv enth e la ck of f orm al st ru ctur e an d t he rep et it iv e n atur e o f th e work the y were as si gn ed-- th ey

rece iv ed ve ry li tt le educ at io na l b en efi t fr om th ei r ex te rn sh ip s an d, i ns te ad , th ey co nf erre d eco no m ic be ne fiton Defen da nt s. As a res ul t, Pl ai nt iff s co nt en d t ha t t he y

qu al ify as “ em pl oyees” un de r th e FLSA an d a re en ti tl edto m in im um wage . The di stric t co urt g ran te d Def en da nt s’ m ot io ns forsu m m ary jud gm en t. The di st ric t co urt co nc lu de d tha t n ei th er Kap la n n or O’ Neil l wer e “ em

pl oyees” withi n th e m ean in g o f th e FLSA. Andth e co urt d is m is se d B ev acqua ’s su itas b arre d b y th e st atut e o f li m it at io ns . W e rev ie w a di st ric t co urt’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t d e n ov o; an d we vi ew th e ev id en ce an d a ll reas on ab le factua l i nf eren ces in th e li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e n on m ov in g p art y . Man ic ci a v . Bro wn, 1 71 F.3d13 64 , 13 67 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ).

4

Case: 12-12011 Date Filed: 01/22/2013 Page: 4 of 9Fi rs t, we co nc lu de th atBev acqua ’s su itwas b arre d b y th e st atut e o f li m it at io ns . An act io n fo r m in im um wage s u nd er the FLSA m us t b e b ro ug ht wit hi n t wo years. 2 9 U.S.C. § 25 5( a). Bu t t he st atut e o f li m it at io ns ex te nd s t o th ree years i f th e cl ai m

is on e “ ari si ng ou t o f a wil lfu l v io la ti on .” Id . That Bev acquafil edhi s l aws ui t m or e th antwo y ears -- b utles s t ha n t hr ee years -- aft er hi s caus e o f act io n a ccru edis un di sp ut ed . Bev acquaarg ue s tha t t he th ree- y ear s ta tu te of l im it at io ns ap pl ie s i n h is cas e be cau se MMM vi ol at edwil lfu ll y th e FLSA whe n i t as su m ed , witho ut in ve st ig at io n, t ha t ex te rn s d idno t n eedto be pa id . To es tabl is h awil lfu l v io la ti on of th e FLSA fo r pu rp os es of e xt en di ng th e li m it at io ns pe rio d, Be va cqua“ m us t pr ov e b y a pr ep on de ran ce o f th e ev id en ce t ha t [M MM ] ei th er kne w th atit s co nduc t was pro hi bi te d b y th e st atut e o r sh owe d re ck le ss di sr eg ardab ou t wh ethe r itwas.” See Al va rez P erez v. Sa nf or d- Orla nd o Ken ne l Cl ub , Inc ., 51 5 F .3d11 50 , 11 62 -6 3 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 8) . Whe re “ anem pl oyer act s u nr eas on ab ly butno t reck le ss ly in d et erm in in g i ts leg al ob li ga ti on un de r th e FLSA,” we d o n otco ns id er it s ac ts wil lfu l. All env. Bd . of Pub. Educ ., 49 5 F .3d13 06 , 13 24 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ). Bev acquafai le d t o d em on st rat e th atMMM ’s act s trig ge redth e th ree- y ear st atut e o f li m it at io ns . Bev acquado es no t co nt en d t ha t M MM kn owi ng ly vio la te d th e FLSA. And-- b ecau se MMM kn ew th atBev acquawou ldrece iv e aca de m ic 5 Case: 12-12011 Date Filed: 01/22/2013 Page: 5 of 9cred itin ex ch an ge forhi s wo rkan d t ha t co m pl et io n o f su chanex te rn sh ip was requi redforgra du at io n -- we can no t s ay th atMMM act edreck le ss ly in as su m in g th atBev acquaco ul d b e u np ai d. Th us , Bev acqua ’s com pl ai ntwas s ub

ject t o t he two -y ear s ta tu te of l im it at io ns an d was di sm is se d p ro pe rly as t im e-b arre d. On ap pe al , Kapl anan d O’Neil l ar gu e th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredin co nc lu di ng th atth ey

were n ot“ em

pl oyees” un de r th e FLSA. Whe th er a p ers on is an“ em pl oyee” wit hi n t he m ean in g o f th e FLSA is a qu es ti on of l aw th atwe 1 rev ie w de n ov o. Vi ll area l v . W oo dm an , 11 3 F .3d20 2, 2 05 (11 th Cir . 19 97 ). Inde te rm in in g wh ethe r anem pl oyer-em

pl oyee rel at io ns hi p e xi st s u nd er the FLSA, we m

us t co ns id er the “ eco no m ic real it ie s” of t he rel at io ns hi p, i nc lu di ng whe th er a p ers on ’s workco nf ers aneco no m ic be ne fiton th e en ti ty for wh om th ey are wo rk in g. Se e Don ov anv. New Fl or id ia n Ho te l, In c., 67 6 F .2d46 8, 4 70 (11 th Ci r. 19 82 ). Bu t, wh ena pe rs onwork s fo r hi s o wn ad va nt ag e o r pe rs on al pu rp os e - - pa rti cu larly whenhi s wo rkpro vi de s n o “ imm ed ia te adva nt ag e” fo r hi s al le ge d

“ em pl oyer” -- h e is no t an“ em pl oyee” u nd er the FLSA. See Walli ng v. Po rtl an d Term in al Co ., 67 S.Ct . 63 9, 6 41 -4 2 (1 94 7) (ex pl ai ni ng th atth e FLSA’s br oa d de fin it io n o f “ em

pl oyee” “ can no t b e in te rp ret edso as t o m ak e a p ers on who se The FL SA define s “employee” as “any individual employed by an employ er.” See 29 U.S.C. 1 § 203(e) (1). And t he phrase “to employ” is define d as “to suffe r or permit to work.” 29 U.S.C. § 203(g ). 6

Case: 12-12011 Date Filed: 01/22/2013 Page: 6 of 9work s erv es on ly his own in te res t an em pl oyee of an ot he r pe rs onwho gi ve s h im ai d a ndin st ru ct io n.” ). Alt ho ug h Kap lan a ndO’ Neil l ar gu e th atth ei r ex te rn sh ip ex pe rie nc es were of li tt le educ at io na l b en efi t, the y di d i n fa cten ga ge in ha nd s- on workforth ei r fo rm al de gr ee p ro gr am . Kapl anan d O’Neil l al so rece iv edacad em ic cred itfor th ei r work a nd , by co m

pl et in g a n e xt ern sh ip , were el ig ib le to earn th ei r de gr ees . Kap la n a ndO’ Neil l ar gu e th at , bec au se th ey were p erfo rm in g t as ks for Defen da nt s’ bu si ne ss es , Defen da nt s b en efi tt edeco no m ic al ly from th ei r work. Th e un di sp ut edev id en ce, h owe ve r, de m on st rat es th atDefen da nt s’ st aff s pe ntti m e -- ti m e away from

th ei r own reg ul ar dut ie s -- tra in in g P la in ti ffs an d s up erv is in g a nd rev ie win g P la in ti ffs ’ work. Ev envi ewin g t he ev id en ce i n t he li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to Pla in ti ffs , Pla in ti ffs cau se d Def en da nt s’ bu si ne ss es to run les s ef fic ie nt ly and cau se d a t l eas t s om e dup li cat io n o f effo rt. Defe nd an ts rece iv edli tt le if a ny eco no m ic be ne fitfro m

Pla in ti ffs ’ work. Th us , un de r th e “ eco no m ic real it ie s” tes t, Pl ai nt iff s wer e n ot“ em

pl oyees” withi n t he m ean in g o f th e FLSA. See New Fl or id ia n Ho te l, In c., 67 6 F .2dat 4 70 . Thi s co nc lu si on is als o s up po rte d b y gu id an ce fr om

th e Dep art m en t o f Lab or ’s W ag e an d Ho urAdm in is tra to r. The Ad m in is tra to r ha s i de nt ifi edsi x fact or s -- de riv edfro m

th e Supr em e Co urt’s d eci si on in Po rtl an d Term in al --

7 Case: 12-12011 Date Filed: 01/22/2013 Page: 7 of 9pe rti ne ntto de te rm in in g wh ethe r a trai ne e qua li fie s as anem pl oyee un de r th e FLSA. “ The rul in gs , in te rp ret at io ns an d o pi ni on s o f th e Adm in is tra to r un de r [the

2 FLSA], whi le no t co nt ro ll in g upo n c ou rts by reaso n o f th ei r au th or it y , do co ns ti tu te a bo dy of ex pe rie nc e an d i nf orm edjud gm en t t o wh ic h c ou rts an d li ti ga nt s m ay

pro pe rly reso rt f

orgu id an ce.” Dad e Cn ty. v. Al va rez, 1 24 F.3d 13 80 , 13 85 (11 th Cir . 19 97 ) (ci ti ng Sk id m or e v . Swift& Co ., 65 S.Ct . 16 1, 1 64 (1 94 4) ). The ex te rn sh ip pro gr am s atCo de Blu e an d EFEI s at is fy all si x o f th e Adm in is tra to r’s cri te ria . The trai ni ng pro vi de d was si m il ar t o t ha t wh ic h wo ul d b e gi ve n i n s ch oo l an d was rel at edto Pla in ti ffs ’ co ur se of s tu dy. The tra in in g be ne fit te d P la in ti ffs , who rece iv edacad em ic cred itforth ei r work a ndwho

Under the Administrator’s test, a tr ainee is not an “employee” if these six factors apply : 2 (1) the training , even thou gh i t i n cludes actua l opera tion of the fac iliti es of the employer, is similar to that which would be g iven in a vocational school; (2) the tr ainingis for the be nefit of the tr ainee s; (3) the trainee s do not displace regular employees, but work under close supervision; (4) the employer that provides the training derive s no immediate advanta g e from the activities of the tra inees a nd on occa sion his operations may actua lly be impeded; (5) the trainee s are not ne cessa rily entitled to a job a

t the completion of the training period; and, (6) the employ er an d t h e trainee s understand that the trainee s are not entitled to wag es for the time spent in training . Wage & Hour Manual (B NA) 91:416 (1975); see also Donovan v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 686 F.2d 267, 273 n.7 (5th Cir. 1982). 8

Case: 12-12011 Date Filed: 01/22/2013 Page: 8 of 9sa ti sf

ie d apre co nd it io n o f gr adua ti on . Bot h Kap la n a ndO’ Neil l wer e supe rv is ed cl os el y an d d idno t d is pl ace De fen da nt s’ reg ul ar em pl oyees. Defe nd an ts rece iv ed no imm ed ia te adva nt ag e fro m Pla in ti ffs ’ work a nd , at t im es , were i m pe de d b y th ei r effo rts to he lp tra in an d s up erv is e Pl ai nt iff s. An d b oth Kap lan a ndO’ Neil l ad m it th atth ey were une nt it le d t o ajob aft er the ir e xt ern sh ip s an d t ha t t he y un de rs to od th atth e ex te rn sh ip wou ldbe unpa id . Bec au se no ge nu in e is su e o f m at eri al factex is ts , we affi rm th e d is tri ct co urt’s g ran t o f su m

m ary jud gm en t i n fa vo r of Defen da nt s. AFFIR MED.

9 Case: 12-12011 Date Filed: 01/22/2013 Page: 9 of 9