在成千上万大学生正寻找暑期实习机会，而且许多是不支薪工作之时，以华裔女生王学丹(Xuedan Wang，音译)为首的一批无偿工作实习生共同提出告诉，试图向赫斯特公司(Hearst Corp)索取欠薪。但纽约地区法官贝尔(Harold Baer)驳回这项集体告诉，宣称他们并不符合属于同一群体的定义。他们如果真的要打官司，只能分别提出告诉。
纽约律师皮安科(Maurice Pianko)说，法官的裁决使这些实习生更难索取欠薪。
美国广播公司报导说，王学丹自2011年8月开始，每周在「哈泼市场」杂志工作五天，在编辑与公关代表之间往来连络。其他原告分别在「柯梦波丹」、「美丽佳人」、「红皮书」和赫斯特旗下其他杂志工作。
这些原告宣称，他们与正式的全职员工做同样的事情，根据州和联邦劳工法，有权利获得同样的保护。
赫斯特公司辩称，本案适用联邦最高法院1947年的裁决：根据教学计画免费工作的「练习生」并非员工，不适用联邦劳工法。贝尔法官同意这种立场，并裁定赫斯特公司显示这些实习生确实获得某种训练。
贝尔也发现这些实习生的工作，以及他们获得的福利相去极大，使他们无法形成一个特定群体。
皮安科说，如果集体告诉不能成立，很少人会个别打官司，也很少律师愿意接受这种案件。他说，虽然许多律师乐于承办集体告诉，因为个别当事人要求的赔偿总数加在一起可能相当可观，不过律师能够从本案每个当事人得到的酬劳顶多只有几千元，还抵不上打官司的成本。
Interns’ case against Hearst falters in wake of Dukes, Comcast
By Carlyn Kolker
NEW YORK (Reuters) - A judge on Wednesday ruled that former unpaid interns at publishing giant Hearst Corp can’t pursue their case as a class action, echoing recent Supreme Court cases.
In February 2012 Xuedan Wang, a former intern at Harper’s Bazaar magazine, sued Hearst, saying she and others were unfairly misclassified. Because she did work that was similar to what others were paid to do, Wang claimed her unpaid internship violated the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and New York state labor laws.
"Unpaid interns are becoming the modern-day equivalent of entry-level employees, except that employers are not paying them for the many hours they work," stated Wang’s complaint, filed in federal court in Manhattan.
The case, pursued by law firm Outten & Golden, which specializes in representing workers in wage-and-hour and misclassification cases, sought class action status and was set for trial on May 28.
In a ruling on Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Harold Baer said that the former interns failed to meet the bar set out in the Supreme Court’s landmark 2011 case Dukes v. Wal-Mart to constitute a class action. Specifically, Baer found that the interns did not meet the standards of commonality and predominance needed to be considered a class.
"Here, while a close question, the commonality requirement is not satisfied because plaintiffs cannot show anything more than a uniform policy of unpaid internship," Baer wrote, noting that the plaintiffs, while raising that common issue, also had many dissimilarities, as they worked for different magazines and performed different tasks.
"To mix a metaphor, while half a loaf is better than none, plaintiffs’ argument here just doesn’t cut the mustard," Baer wrote.
Rachel Bien and Justin Klein of Outten & Golden did not return calls seeking comment.
Mark Batten, a lawyer at Proskauer Rose who represented Hearst also did not return a call for comment.
AN UPHILL BATTLE
While the ruling does end the case as a class action, the plaintiffs are free to continue individually, noted Richard Reibstein, an attorney at Pepper Hamilton who isn’t involved in the case.
They may face "an uphill battle," said Reibstein. Because the plaintiffs say that they were entitled to only minimum wage, any potential payouts to plaintiffs and their lawyers would be based on those low wages.
"What lawyer is going to want to do work for that?" he said.
In addition to invoking the Dukes precedent, Baer referenced a more recent Supreme Court decision, noting that the high court’s decision in Comcast Corp. v. Behrend in March laid out more stringent criteria regarding showing common damages in class certification.
"Although plaintiffs argue that Comcast is limited to anti-trust cases, the majority opinion explicitly rejected that very proposition," Baer wrote.
Baer also denied the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on whether they met the definition of an employee.
The case is Xuedan Wang v. The Hearst Corporation, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, No. 12cv793.
For the plaintiffs: Adam Klein, Deirdre Aaron, Elizabeth Wagoner, Michael Scimone, Molly Brooks, Paul Mollica, Rachel Bien and Sally Abrahamson of Outten & Golden.
For the defendant: Jonathan Donnellan, Kristina Findikyan and Courtenay O’Connor of Hearst Corporation and Joshua Alloy and Mark Batten of Proskauer Rose.