The reasonable cost of board, lodging, or other facilities may be considered as part of the wage paid an employee only where “customarily” furnished to the employee. Where such facilities are “furnished” to the employee, it will be considered a sufficient satisfaction of this requirement if the facilities are furnished regularly by the employer to his employees or if the same or similar facilities are customarily furnished by other employees engaged in the same or similar trade, business, or occupation in the same or similar communities. See Walling v. Alaska Pacific Consolidated Mining Co., 152 F. (2d) 812 (C.A. 9), cert. denied, 327 U.S. 803; Southern Pacific Co. v. Joint Council (C.A. 9) 7 W.H. Cases 536. Facilities furnished in violation of any Federal, State, or local law, ordinance or prohibition will not be considered facilities “customarily” furnished.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
17
cases (
4 in the last 5 years), 1987–2026 · leading case:
Roces v. Reno Hous. Auth., 300 F. Supp. 3d 1172 (D. Nev. 2018).
Roces v. Reno Hous. Auth., 300 F. Supp. 3d 1172 (D. Nev. 2018).
· cites it 7× “To claim the benefit of the offset, the employer must meet certain requirements: (1) the lodging must be regularly provided by the employer or similar employers, 29 C.F.R. § 531.31 ; (2) the employee's acceptance of the lodging must be voluntary and uncoerced, 29 C.”
Maryam Balbed v. Eden Park Guest House, LLC, 881 F.3d 285 (4th Cir. 2018).
· cites it 3× “The lodging is regularly provided by the employer or similar employers, 29 C.F.R. § 531.31 ; 2. The employee voluntarily accepts the lodging, 29 C.”
Ramos-Barrientos v. Bland, 661 F.3d 587 (11th Cir. 2011).
“Second, the workers argue that Bland may not receive wage credits for the meals because “[f]acilities furnished in violation of any Federal, State, or local law, ordinance or prohibition will not be considered facilities ‘customarily’ furnished,” 29 C.F.R. § 531.31 , but this…”
Soler v. G & U, Inc., 768 F. Supp. 452 (S.D.N.Y. 1991).
· cites it 5× “See 29 C.F.R. § 531.31 . In particular, he found that three housing units lacked heating in their living areas and that three units lacked heating in their outside privies.”
Castillo v. Case Farms of Ohio, Inc., 96 F. Supp. 2d 578 (W.D. Tex. 1999).
“29 C.F.R. § 531.31 . It is in the context of these rules of calculation, that the plaintiffs in this civil action bring two types of FLSA claims.”
Osias v. Marc, 700 F. Supp. 842 (D. Maryland 1988).
“29 C.F.R. § 531.31 ; Strong v. Williams, 89 Lab.”
Caro-Galvan v. Curtis Richardson, Inc., 993 F.2d 1500 (11th Cir. 1993).
“…are not considered "customarily furnished” when they are furnished in violation of federal, state, or local law. 29 C.F.R. § 531.31 .”
Archie v. Grand Cent. P'ship, Inc., 86 F. Supp. 2d 262 (S.D.N.Y. 2000).
“Finally, 29 C.F.R. § 531.31 states, “Facilities furnished in violation of any Federal, State, or local law, ordinance or prohibition will not be considered facilities ‘customarily’ furnished.”
Osias v. Marc, 700 F. Supp. 842 (D. Maryland 1988).
“29 C.F.R. § 531.31 ; Strong v. Williams, 89 Lab.”
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.