services” within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 213(a)(15) will not qualify for overtime compensation under the “trained personnel” exception of 29 C.F.R. § 552.6 unless (1) that employee’s position involves the provision of services required to be performed by someone with training comparable in scope and duration to that of a registered or practical nurse, and (2) the employee in fact has received such training. Cox v. Acme Health Servs., Inc., 55 F.3d 1304, 1310 (7th Cir.1995). Moreover, “on-the-job training” is not recognized for the trained personnel exception because to do so would create an “ ‘administrative nightmare’ for the state since each worker would constantly have to be reevaluated.” McCune, 894 F.2d at 1111. See also Sandt v. Holden, 698 F.Supp. 64, 68 (M.D.Pa.1988) (<HOLDING>). In applying this formulation, courts have
holding an accused with a sixth or seventh grade education who testified at suppression hearing that he had asked for a lawyer  although disbelieved by the trial court  indicated his familiarity with his rights holding that the plaintiffs conclusory statement that the student who was hired instead of her had less experience and education could not defeat summary judgment because absent supporting facts  a jury would be in no position to assess her claim of superiority holding that a retiree with a sixth grade education who was given little time to review the terms had stated a claim holding that plaintiff who had an eleventh grade education and who held no licenses did not satisfy the trained personnel exception even though having past experience as a health aide holding that the record did not belie the claimants iq of 58 where he attended special education classes did not live independently and dropped out of school at a low grade either in the sixth or eighth grade