Raymond J. Donovan, Sec'y of Labor, United States Dep't of Labor v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 726 F.2d 415 (8th Cir. 1984). · Go Syfert
Raymond J. Donovan, Sec'y of Labor, United States Dep't of Labor v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 726 F.2d 415 (8th Cir. 1984). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
20 citation events (16 in the last 25 years) across 10 distinct courts.
Treatment trajectory · 1985 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1985 2005 2026
Cited for
At page 417 Whether employment status is a legal determination10 citing cases“whether or not an individual is an 'employee' within the meaning of the flsa is a legal determination rather than a factual one.”3 citing courts quote it
  • Martin Walsh v. Alpha & Omega USA, Inc., 39 F.4th 1078 (8th Cir. 2022).published 2 cites
    While the precise nature of the working relationship—as examined by means of the factors—involves questions of fact, the “ultimate question of ‘[w]hether or not an individual is an “employee” within the meaning of the FLSA is a legal deter…
  • Earl v. Bell House, LLC, No. 8:20-cv-00129 (D. Neb. Feb. 9, 2022).
    Petroski v. H & R Block Enters., LLC, 750 F.3d 976, 978 (8th Cir. 2014) (“Whether or not an individual is an ‘employee’ within the meaning of the FLSA is a legal determination rather than a factual one.” (quoting Donovan v. Trans World Air…
  • Rosa v. Mitek Inc., No. 4:21-cv-00187, 2021 WL 5371251 (E.D. Mo. Nov. 18, 2021).
    Investigations, LLC, 860 F.3d 1089, 1092-93 (8th Cir. 2017) (“The ultimate question of whether or not an individual is an ‘employee’ within the meaning of the FLSA is a legal determination rather than a factual one.”) (cleaned up) (quoting…
  • Ghess v. Kaid, No. 2:19-cv-00021, 2020 WL 7010383 (E.D. Ark. Nov. 27, 2020).
    Fla. 1997). “[T]he ultimate question of ‘[w]hether or not an individual is an ‘employee’ within the meaning of the FLSA is a legal determination rather than a factual one.’” Karlson, 860 F.3d at 1092–93 (quoting Donovan v. Trans World Airl…
  • Karnes v. Happy Trails RV Park, LLC, No. 2:16-cv-04309 (W.D. Mo. Jan. 8, 2019).
    Donovan v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 726 F.2d 415, 417 (8th Cir. 1984); See also Dole v. Elliott Travel & Tours, Inc., 942 F.2d 962, 965 (6th Cir. 1991); Reich v. ConAgra, Inc., 987 F.2d 1357, 1360 (8th Cir. 1993).
  • Karlson v. Action Process Serv. & Private Investigations, LLC, 860 F.3d 1089 (8th Cir. 2017).published
    Whatever test is applied, deciding whether Karlson was an employee under the FLSA involves questions of fact—the precise nature of his duties and relationship with the alleged employer—but the *1093 ultimate question of “[wjhether or not a…
  • Hughes v. Fam. Life Care, Inc., 117 F. Supp. 3d 1365 (N.D. Fla. 2015).published
    See, e.g., Karr v. Strong Detective Agency, Inc., 787 F.2d 1205, 1206-07 (7th Cir.1986); Donovan v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 726 F.2d 415, 417 (8th Cir.1984); Donovan v. Brandel, 736 F.2d 1114, 1116 (6th Cir.1984); Bonnette v. Californi…
  • Petroski v. H & R Block Enter., LLC, 750 F.3d 976 (8th Cir. 2014).published
    “Whether or not an individual is an ‘employee’ within the meaning of the FLSA is a legal determination rather than a factual one.” Donovan v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 726 F.2d 415, 417 (8th Cir.1984) (per curiam).
  • Barbara Petroski v. H&R Block Enter., No. 13-2076 (8th Cir. May 2, 2014).published
    “Whether or not an individual is an ‘employee’ within the meaning of the FLSA is a legal determination rather than a factual one.” Donovan v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 726 F.2d 415, 417 (8th Cir. 1984) (per curiam).
  • Sendhabhai Patel v. Dr. Alex Wargo, Etc., 803 F.2d 632 (11th Cir. 1986).published
    See, e.g., Bonnette v. California Health & Welfare Agency, 704 F.2d 1465, 1468-69 (9th Cir. 1983); Donovan v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 726 F.2d 415, 417 (8th Cir.1984); Karr v. Strong Detective Agency, Inc., 787 F.2d 1205, 1206-07 (7th…
At page 416 airline trainees not "employees" under FLSA because airline receives no "immediate benefit" from their training3 citing cases2 citing courts put it this way
Other citing cases1 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Raymond J. DONOVAN, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor, Appellant,
v.
TRANS WORLD AIRLINES, INC., Appellee
83-1661.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Feb 2, 1984.
Published opinion
726 F.2d 415
1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 25836
Francis X. Lilly, Deputy Sol. of Labor, Karen I. Ward, Associate Sol. for Sp. Appellate and Supreme Court Litigation, Tedrick A. Housh, Regional Sol., Mary-Helen Maut-ner, Counsel for Appellate Litigation, Sandra D. Lord, Atty., U.S. Dept, of Labor, Washington, D.C., for appellant., Stephen P. Dees and Dick H. Woods, Stinson, Mag & Fizzell, Kansas City, Mo., for appellee.
McMillian, Gibson, Bowman.
Cited by 16 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

The Secretary of Labor appeals from a final judgment entered in the District Court [1] for the Western District of Missouri ruling that flight attendant trainees who had trained at Trans World Airlines, Inc.’s (TWA) Breech Training Academy were not “employees” for the purposes of the Fair Labor Standards Act,. 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq. (FLSA), during the first four weeks of training and, consequently, were not covered by the minimum wage and reporting provisions of the FLSA. We affirm.

For many years TWA, a major commercial air carrier, chose to train all TWA flight attendants at its Breech Training Academy (Academy) located in Overland Park, Kansas. Flight attendant positions were highly desirable and TWA received literally thousands of applications each year. In an effort to keep the cost of training flight attendants down, TWA tried to predict the number of flight attendant vacancies that would arise.' Based on those determinations, TWA carefully selected its prospective trainees from a large group of applicants.

Although not officially required to do so, most flight attendant trainees resided in dormitory-like accommodations located on the Academy grounds. During the disputed four-week training period, the trainees neither received nor expected any wages or monetary compensation from TWA. However, TWA did provide meals, lodging, ground transportation, and health arid accident insurance during the training periods.

Trainees attended approximately forty hours of classes per week. About one-half of the training was devoted to the safety and emergency instruction required by the Federal Aviation Administration. TWA also provided instruction in subjects such as aviation history, grooming, personal and public communications, physical fitness, foreign currencies, and food and liquor preparation. The district court found that although much of this instruction was geared to TWA passenger service and equipment, “much of that training could be utilized in service on other airlines and in other fields of endeavor.” Donovan v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., No. 77-0881, slip op. at 10 (W.D.Mo. Mar. 4, 1983) (footnote omitted).

At no time prior to completion of the training course were trainees permitted to work on regular commercial flights or to supplement the work of regular flight attendants. Although completion of the training course qualified trainees as flight attendants, TWA did not guarantee that all successful trainees would be hired upon graduation.

The district court concluded that TWA flight attendant trainees were not “employees” within the meaning of the relevant provisions of the FLSA because TWA received no immediate benefit from their efforts during training. Id. at 18. See [*417] Walling v. Portland Terminal Co., 330 U.S. 148, 153, 67 S.Ct. 639, 641, 91 L.Ed. 809 (1947). Whether or not an individual is an “employee” within the meaning of the PLSA is a legal determination rather than a factual one. Donovan v. American Airlines, Inc., 686 F.2d 267, 270 n. 4 (5th Cir. 1982).

After careful examination of the record, we conclude that the district court’s determination is correct. Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the district court’s analysis. See 8th Cir.R. 14.

1

. Upon written consent of the parties, this action was assigned to the Honorable Richard H. Ralston, United States Magistrate, for trial and decision pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).