(a) Although not expressly defined in the FLSA, the term “establishment” had acquired a well settled meaning by the time of enactment of the Equal Pay Act. It refers to a distinct physical place of business rather than to an entire business or “enterprise” which may include several separate places of business. Accordingly, each physically separate place of business is ordinarily considered a separate establishment.
(b) In unusual circumstances, two or more portions of a business enterprise, even though located in a single physical place of business, may constitute more than one establishment. For example, the facts might reveal that these portions of the enterprise are physically segregated, engaged in functionally separate operations, and have separate employees and maintain separate records. Conversely, unusual circumstances may call for two or more distinct physical portions of a business enterprise being treated as a single establishment. For example, a central administrative unit may hire all employees, set wages, and assign the location of employment; employees may frequently interchange work locations; and daily duties may be virtually identical and performed under similar working conditions. Barring unusual circumstances, however, the term “establishment” will be applied as described in paragraph (a) of this section.
Notes of Decisions
Clayton v. Vanguard Car Rental U.S.A., Inc., 761 F. Supp. 2d 1210 (D.N.M. 2010).
· cites it 9× “” 29 C.F.R. § 1620.9 . The Code of Federal Regulations states that unusual circumstances may call for two or more distinct physical portions of a business enterprise being treated as a single establishment.”
Price v. N. States Power Co., 664 F.3d 1186 (8th Cir. 2011).
· cites it 2× “1095 (1945); 29 C.F.R. § 1620.9 (a). Only in “unusual circumstances” may “two or more distinct physical portions of a business enterprise [be treated] as a single establishment.”
Prise v. Alderwoods Grp., Inc., 657 F. Supp. 2d 564 (W.D. Pa. 2009).
· cites it 3× “It refers to a distinct physical place of business rather than to an entire business or “enterprise,” which may include several separate places of business.”
Roberta Jaburek v. Anthony Foxx, 813 F.3d 626 (7th Cir. 2016).
“See 29 C.F.R. § 1620.9 (a) (stating that “each physically separate place of business is ordinarily considered a separate establishment”).”
Knox v. John Varvatos Enters. Inc., 282 F. Supp. 3d 644 (S.D. Ill. 2017).
“See generally 29 C.F.R. § 1620.9 (a)-(b) (noting that although "a distinct physical place of business" generally constitutes a single establishment, a court may also find "two or more distinct physical portions of a business enterprise" to be a single establishment after…”
Lindsley v. TRT Holdings, 984 F.3d 460 (5th Cir. 2021).
“” 29 C.F.R. § 1620.9 (a). Only in “unusual circumstances may .”
Morales v. 22nd Dist. Agric. Ass'n, 26 Wage & Hour Cas.2d (BNA) 1286 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016).
“For example, a central administrative unit may hire all employees, set wages, and assign the location of employment; employees may frequently interchange work locations; and daily duties may be virtually identical and performed under similar working conditions.”
Lenihan v. Boeing Co., 994 F. Supp. 776 (S.D. Tex. 1998).
· cites it 4× “” 29 C.F.R. § 1620.9 (a). “Accordingly, each physically separate place of business is ordinarily considered a separate establishment.”
Jessica Lind Meeks v. Comput. Assocs. Int'l, a Foreign Corp., 15 F.3d 1013 (11th Cir. 1994).
“See 29 C.F.R. § 1620.9 (a) (1993). The district court found that Computer Associates lacked the degree of centralization necessary to justify admitting evidence concerning the salaries of non-Maitland based technical writers.”
Ingram v. Brinks Inc., 414 F.3d 222 (1st Cir. 2005).
“” 29 C.F.R. § 1620.9 . Accordingly, Ingram’s EPA claim focuses on two male employees within a single establishment— the Lawrence branch.”
Doe v. Butler Amusements, Inc., 71 F. Supp. 3d 1125 (N.D. Cal. 2014).
· cites it 4× “” 29 C.F.R. § 1620.9 (a). Section 1620.9 is entitled “Meaning of ‘establishment’ ” and offers the following example of circumstances in which two or more distinct portion of an enterprise may be considered a single establishment: For example, a central administrative unit may…”
— 29 C.F.R. § 1620.9(a) — 1 case
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.