29 C.F.R. § 1620.2

General coverage of employees “engaged in commerce.”

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Like the FLSA, the EPA applies to employees “engaged in commerce.” “Commerce” is broadly defined in section 3(b) of the FLSA. It includes both interstate and foreign commerce and is not limited to transportation across State lines, or to activity of a commercial character. All parts of the movement among the several States, or between any State and any place outside thereof, of persons or things, tangibles or intangibles, including communication of information and intelligence, constitute movement in “commerce” within the statutory definition. This includes those parts of any such activity which take place wholly within a single State. In addition, the instrumentalities for carrying on such commerce are so inseparable from the commerce itself that employees working on such instrumentalities within the borders of a single State, by virtue of the contribution made by their work to the movement of the commerce, are “engaged in commerce” within the meaning of the FLSA.

(b) Consistent with the purpose of the FLSA to apply Federal standards “throughout the farthest reaches of the channels of interstate commerce,” the courts have made it clear that the employees “engaged in commerce” include every employee employed in the channels of such commerce or in activities so closely related to such commerce as to be considered a part of it as a practical matter. Engaging “in commerce” includes activities connected therewith such as management and control of the various physical processes, together with the accompanying accounting and clerical activities. Thus, employees engaged in interstate or foreign commerce will typically include, among others, employees in distributing industries such as wholesaling or retailing who sell, transport, handle, or otherwise work on goods moving in interstate or foreign commerce as well as workers who order, receive, guard, pack, ship or keep records of such goods; employees who handle payroll or personnel functions for workers engaged in such activities; clerical and other workers who regularly use the mails, telephone, or telegraph for communication across State lines; and employees who regularly travel across State lines while working. For other examples, see 29 CFR part 776.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 11 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1998–2022 · leading case: Brian Wurzel v. Whirlpool Corporation

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Brian Wurzel v. Whirlpool Corporation (2012) ca6 · cites it 2× “29 C.F.R. § 1620.2 (r); Mauro, 137 F.3d at 402.”

Deas v. River West, L.P. (1998) ca5 “” 29 C.F.R. § 1620.2 (j)(l)(i) & (ii). Dr. Dixon clearly did not regard Deas as completely “unable” to see, speak, and hear.”

Ferrari v. Ford Motor Co. (2015) mied · cites it 2× “” 29 C.F.R. § 1620.2 (k)(l). “An individual will be considered to have a record of a disability if the individual has a history of an impairment that substantially limited one or more major life activities when compared to most people in the general population, or was…”

Mayon J. Hoard v. CUH2A, Inc. (2007) ca11 “” 29 C.F.R. § 1620.2 (j)(3)(i); see also Collado v.”

Gray v. Fleetpride, Inc. (2022) ilnd · cites it 2× “§ 12102 (2)(A); see also 29 C.F.R. § 1620.2 (i)(1)(i) (including additional activities of sitting, reaching, and interacting with others).”

William L. Lucas v. W.W. Grainger, Inc. (2001) ca11 “See 29 C.F.R. § 1620.2 (o)(3). However, "where a plaintiff cannot demonstrate 'reasonable accommodation,' the employer's lack of investigation into reasonable accommodation is unimportant.”

Fortkamp v. City of Celina (2016) ohnd “” 29 C.F.R. § 1620.2 (k)(2). “Courts that have analyzed [the record-of-impairment] prong have held that it includes people who have recovered from previously disabling conditions.”

Sepulveda v. Galindo (2021) casd “See 29 C.F.R. § 1620.2 (j). Those factors are: “(i) The nature and severity of the impairment; (ii) The duration or expected duration 27 of the impairment; and (iii) The permanent or long term impact, or the expected permanent or long term impact of or resulting from the…”

Campbell v. Union Pacific Railroad Co. (2020) idd “§ 12113 (b); 29 C.F.R. § 1620.2 (r); see Nunes at 1247 .”

Mathias v. Dolgencorp, LLC (2022) innd “§ 12102 (2)(A); see also 29 C.F.R. § 1620.2 (i)(1)(i) (including additional activities of sitting, reaching, and interacting with others).”

William L. Lucas v. W.W. Grainger, Inc. (2001) ca11 “Clare’s changes on the Job Description form and offering him that position.2 2 Lucas contends that Grainger failed to engage him in an “interactive process” with the aim of identifying an accommodation that might allow him to continue working at Grainger after he became disabled.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.