29 C.F.R. § 541.606

Board, lodging or other facilities

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

(a) To qualify for exemption under section 13(a)(1) of the Act, an employee must earn the minimum salary amount set forth in § 541.600, “exclusive of board, lodging or other facilities.” The phrase “exclusive of board, lodging or other facilities” means “free and clear” or independent of any claimed credit for non-cash items of value that an employer may provide to an employee. Thus, the costs incurred by an employer to provide an employee with board, lodging or other facilities may not count towards the minimum salary amount required for exemption under this part 541. Such separate transactions are not prohibited between employers and their exempt employees, but the costs to employers associated with such transactions may not be considered when determining if an employee has received the full required minimum salary payment.

(b) Regulations defining what constitutes “board, lodging, or other facilities” are contained in 29 CFR part 531. As described in 29 CFR 531.32, the term “other facilities” refers to items similar to board and lodging, such as meals furnished at company restaurants or cafeterias or by hospitals, hotels, or restaurants to their employees; meals, dormitory rooms, and tuition furnished by a college to its student employees; merchandise furnished at company stores or commissaries, including articles of food, clothing, and household effects; housing furnished for dwelling purposes; and transportation furnished to employees for ordinary commuting between their homes and work.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 2017–2020 · leading case: Ming-Hsiang Kao v. Joy Holiday, 219 Cal. Rptr. 3d 580 (Cal. Ct. App. 5th 2017).
Ming-Hsiang Kao v. Joy Holiday, 219 Cal. Rptr. 3d 580 (Cal. Ct. App. 5th 2017). “" ( 29 C.F.R. § 541.606 (a) (2017).) *959 Although no California case has expressly held that nonmonetary benefits are not to be included in determining exempt status, the law in this state is in accord with the federal authority.”
Kao v. Joy Holiday (Cal. Ct. App. 2017). “” ( 29 C.F.R. § 541.606 (a) (2017).) Although no California case has expressly held that nonmonetary benefits are not to be included in determining exempt status, the law in this state is in accord with the federal authority.”
Kim v. The Korean News of Chicago Inc. (N.D. Ill. 2020). “See 29 C.F.R. § 541.606 (a) (stating that an employee must earn the minimum salary requirement “exclusive of board, lodging or other facilities,” and explaining that this phrase means “‘free and clear’ .”
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.