Regardless, courts within this Circuit have roundly rejected Defendants' theory, finding that the FLSA's statutory definition of a covered employee has nothing to do with whether an employee is licensed to perform certain work. See, e.g., Ji v. Aily Foot Relax Station, Inc., No. 19 Civ 11881 (VB), 2023 WL 35240, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 4, 2023) (“[I]t is irrelevant whether plaintiff was properly licensed to perform massages because it has no bearing on whether he is an ‘employee' under either the FLSA or the NYLL.”);