at the completion of the training period; and, (6) the employer and the trainees understand that the trainees are not entitled to wages for the time spent in training. Id. at 834 n. 2 (citing Wage & Hour Manual (BNA) 91:416 (1975)). While such multi-factor tests provide helpful guidance, courts must ensure that their “determination of the relationship does not depend on such isolated factors but rather upon the circumstances of the whole activity.” Rutherford Food Corp. v. McComb, 331 U.S. 722, 730, 67 S.Ct. 1473, 91 L.Ed. 1772 (1947). This is especially true where, as here, the hybrid student-trainee nature of Plaintiffs’ clinical experience renders rigid adherence to any particular test impractical. See Solis v. Laurelbrook Sanitarium & Sch., Inc., 642 F.3d 518, 525-26 (6th Cir.2011) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, utilizing the Kaplan factors as
holding futa after which florida molded its unemployment law is phrased entirely in terms of the nature of the employer and not in terms of the work performed or the place at which the employee works holding that the courts analysis should focus on the nature of the abuse injuries inflicted and the effect of both holding that when training takes place in an educational setting the analysis should focus on which party receives the primary benefit of the work performed by the students recognizing the more narrow focus of a good faith analysis holding that nature of the conduct should not be considered in a sterile setting detached from the milieu in which it took place