United States: Airline Avoids Liability For Training Time Activity – Court Holds It Was Not "Work"

The issue of whether to pay for training time is a vexing one. In a recent case, a major airline avoided liability (for the most part) in a FLSA collective action alleging that it did not pay workers for time spent in a customer service-training program. The Court held that the trainees were not employees "engaged" in work. The case is entitled Otico v. Hawaiian Airlines Inc., and was filed in federal court in the Northern District of California.

The individual (Otico) had claimed that she was entitled to ten days pay for her time spent in a pre-employment training program. The Court concluded, in granting summary judgment that no reasonable juror could conclude that this person was acting as an "employee" when she took the training courses. The Court found that the airline was not directly benefitting from any free labor. The Court held that "the trainees receive the benefit of learning how to do a job they hope to get. Otico, therefore, was the 'primary beneficiary' of the arrangement. Although one wonders why Hawaiian is unwilling to pay something to these people, since they no doubt must sacrifice to participate in the program, the law does not require it to do so."

The employer contended that the training provided was equivalent to the kind of instruction that the people could have received at a trade or vocational school and which would have cost them a lot of money. The airline also asserted that it incurred extra costs and there were disruptions to its operations that were a by-product of its providing the training.

Ms. Otico, as a part of the hiring process, claimed that she was compelled to attend the unpaid training course, which took ten days, for eight hours per day. The people learned about federal regulations and how to utilize the airline computer/software system. Ms. Otico completed the course in December 2015 and got a job with the airline after she passed a drug test and received clearance from the airport.

The Takeaway

I do not understand the judicial reasoning here. The person claimed that attendance was mandatory, the course material was related to the trainee's job, and attendance was during regular working hours. If those facts are true, then, under FLSA regulations and precedent, this time should have been compensable.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.