C.F.R. » Title 29 » CHAPTER V—WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR › SUBCHAPTER A—REGULATIONS › PART 541—DEFINING AND DELIMITING THE EXEMPTIONS FOR EXECUTIVE, ADMINISTRATIVE, PROFESSIONAL, COMPUTER AND OUTSIDE SALES EMPLOYEES › Subpart B—Executive Employees

29 C.F.R. § 541.101

Business owner

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

The term “employee employed in a bona fide executive capacity” in section 13(a)(1) of the Act also includes any employee who owns at least a bona fide 20-percent equity interest in the enterprise in which the employee is employed, regardless of whether the business is a corporate or other type of organization, and who is actively engaged in its management. The term “management” is defined in § 541.102. The requirements of Subpart G (salary requirements) of this part do not apply to the business owners described in this section.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1988–2025 · leading case: Wilson v. On the Rise Enters., LLC, 305 F. Supp. 3d 5 (D.C. Cir. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Wilson v. On the Rise Enters., LLC, 305 F. Supp. 3d 5 (D.C. Cir. 2018). “§ 213 (a)(1) (exempting from coverage of FLSA's minimum wage provisions "any employee employed in a bona fide executive, administrative, or professional capacity"); 29 C.F.R. § 541.101 (defining the term "employee employed in a bona fide executive capacity" to include "any…”
Taylor-Callahan-Coleman Counties Dist. Adult Prob. Dep't v. Elizabeth Dole, 948 F.2d 953 (5th Cir. 1991). “In 1985, the DOL published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking and received comments on the need to alter the duties, responsibilities and salary tests of 29 C.F.R. § 541.101 . 50 Fed.Reg. 47,696 (1985), 51 Fed.”
Hawks v. City of Newport News, Va., 707 F. Supp. 212 (E.D. Va. 1988). “1 (f), 29 C.F. R. §§ 541.101; 541.119? a. Whether the defendant can establish that the plaintiffs are paid on a salaried basis rather than on an hourly basis as defined in 29 C.”
Demos v. City of Indianapolis, 126 F. Supp. 2d 548 (S.D. Ind. 2000). “29 C.F.R. § 541.101 ; 29 C.F.R. § 541.108 .”
Paschalidis v. Airline Restaurant Corp., No. 1:20-cv-02804 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 28, 2021). · cites it 2× “§ 213 (a)(1); 29 C.F.R. § 541.101 . Of particular relevance here, the “business owner” exemption applies to “any employee who owns at least a bona fide 20- percent equity interest in the enterprise in which the employee is employed .”
Timberg v. Toombs, No. 1:20-cv-06060, 2022 WL 954739 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2022). · cites it 2× “; 29 C.F.R. § 541.101 ; 12 N.Y.C.R.R. § 142-2.”
Walsh v. Fusion Japanese Steakhouse, Inc., 548 F. Supp. 3d 513 (W.D. Pa. 2021). · cites it 2× “” 29 C.F.R. § 541.101 . FLSA exemptions such as the executive exemption under § 213(a)(1) are considered affirmative defenses and the burden is on the defendant to establish them.”
Paschalidis v. Airline Restaurant Corp., No. 1:20-cv-02804 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 28, 2024). · cites it 2× “§ 213 (a)(1); 29 C.F.R. § 541.101 . Of particular relevance here, the “business owner” exemption applies to “any employee who owns at least a bona fide 20-percent equity interest in the enterprise in which the employee is employed .”
Hoffman v. Bear Chase Brewing Co., No. 1:21-cv-01443 (E.D. Va. Mar. 3, 2023). · cites it 2× “2 2 Another means by which employee may qualify as a “manager or supervisor” is if they meet the requirements of 29 C.F.R. § 541.101 . But the record here reflects that none of the employees here do, because none of the alleged managers or supervisors own a “20-percent equity…”
Wilson v. on the Rise Enter., LLC, No. 2016-2241 (D.D.C. Mar. 31, 2018). “§ 213 (a)(1) (exempting from coverage of FLSA’s minimum wage provisions “any employee employed in a bona fide executive, administrative, or professional capacity”); 29 C.F.R. § 541.101 (defining the term “employee employed in a bona fide executive capacity” to include “any…”
Carter v. City of Philadelphia, 417 F. Supp. 3d 639 (E.D. Pa. 2019). “March 11, 2019) (quoting 29 C.F.R. §541.101 (b)). “Factors to consider when determining whether an employee exercises discretion and independent judgment with respect to matters of significance include, but are not limited to: whether the employee has authority to formulate,…”
Abouakil v. Blaze Auto, LLC, No. 2:23-cv-04480 (E.D. Pa. May 17, 2024). “29 CFR § 541.101 . Abouakil claims that she was employed “effectively as an operations manager” and “handled virtually every aspect of” Blaze Auto.”
Show all 14 citing cases →
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.