29 C.F.R. § 541.5
Severability
The provisions of this part are separate and severable and operate independently from one another. If any provision of this part is held to be invalid or unenforceable by its terms, or as applied to any person or circumstance, or stayed pending further agency action, the provision must be construed so as to continue to give the maximum effect to the provision permitted by law, unless such holding be one of utter invalidity or unenforceability, in which event the provision will be severable from part 541 and will not affect the remainder thereof.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 25
cases, 1963–2006 · leading case: Olivo v. GMAC Mortgage Corp.
Olivo v. GMAC Mortgage Corp. (2004)
“29 C.F.R. § 541.5 . In simple terms, in order to qualify for the outside salesman exemption, an employee must spend a significant amount of his or her work-time engaging in sales related activities away from his or her employer’s place of business.”
Fields v. AOL Time Warner, Inc. (2003)
“29 C.F.R. § 541.5 . To determine whether work is “incidental to and in conjunction” with the employee’s sales or solicitations, the regulation provides that [w]ork performed “incidental to and in conjunction with the employees own outside sales or solicitations” includes not…”
Schwind v. EW & Associates, Inc. (2005)
“29 C.F.R. § 541.5 provides that the term outside salesman shall mean any employee: (a) Who is employed for the purpose of and who is customarily and regularly engaged away from his employer’s place or places of business in: (1) Making sales within the meaning of section 3(k) of…”
Bell v. Farmers Insurance Exchange (2001)
“1(B) and 2(1) with 29 C.F.R. §§ 541.5 and 541.505 (2000).) Accordingly, the court held that the trial court erred in relying on federal authorities in construing the wage order: “where the language or intent of state and federal labor laws substantially differ, reliance on…”
Luther v. Z. Wilson, Inc. (1981)
“The regulations in 29 C.F.R. § 541.5 define an outside salesperson as: .”
DeWig v. Landshire, Inc. (1996)
“§ 202 (1994)), the state definition of outside salesman should be read in a manner consistent with the federal definition.”
Chao v. Vidtape, Inc. (2002)
“1 (requiring all elements to be met for the employee to be exempt). Further, Mohinder’s testimony regarding Malkit’s duties did not establish the requirements, of an outside salesman, as.”
Chao v. First National Lending Corp. (2006)
“29 C.F.R. § 541.5 . Under the pre-August 23, 2004 regulations, there was a 20 percent tolerance for non-exempt work.”
Palmieri v. Nynex Long Distance Co. (2006)
“See 29 C.F.R. § 541.5 (2002). The degree of control by the employer is a non-factor in determining whether someone is exempt.”
Melanson v. Rantoul (1982)
“See 29 C.F.R. § 541.5 (b) (1980). [Her status as a professional simply cannot be questioned].”
Wirtz v. Edisto Farms Dairy (1965)
“5 of the Code of Federal Regulations of the Department of Labor, [29 C.F.R. 541.5]. In order to determine whether defendants have violated the provisions of the Act, the following issues must be considered: [1] Are the 1961 amendments to the Act, which include Sections 3 [r] and…”
Miranda-Albino v. Ferrero, Inc. (2006)
“See 29 C.F.R. § 541.5 (2004). 5 During the relevant time period, the applicable regulations defined an “outside salesman” as any employee: *74 (a) Who is employed for the purpose of and who is customarily and regularly engaged away from his employer’s place or places of business…”
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.