29 C.F.R. § 552.99

Basis for coverage of domestic service employees

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

Congress in section 2(a) of the Act specifically found that the employment of persons in domestic service in households affects commerce. In the legislative history it was pointed out that employees in domestic service employment handle goods such as soaps, mops, detergents, and vacuum cleaners that have moved in or were produced for interstate commerce and also that they free members of the household to themselves to engage in activities in interstate commerce (S. Rep. 93-690, pp. 21-22). The Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare “took note of the expanded use of the interstate commerce clause by the Supreme Court in numerous recent cases (particularly Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U.S. 294 (1964)),” and concluded “that coverage of domestic employees is a vital step in the direction of ensuring that all workers affecting interstate commerce are protected by the Fair Labor Standards Act” (S. Rep. 93-690, pp. 21-22).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2012–2025 · leading case: Eusebia Cardenas v. Aragon Towers Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 451 F. App'x 898 (11th Cir. 2012).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Eusebia Cardenas v. Aragon Towers Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 451 F. App'x 898 (11th Cir. 2012). “See 29 C.F.R. § 552.99 . 3 . We review a district court’s denial of a motion for leave to amend a complaint for abuse of discretion.”

Guevara v. Lafise Corp. (S.D. Fla. 2022). · cites it 3× “FLSA Coverage Upon further review of the record, Plaintiff is correct that FLSA coverage does apply because Plaintiff qualifies as a domestic service employee pursuant to 29 C.F.R. 552.99. As Plaintiff points out, Defendants conceded this conclusion in their Response to…”

Murphy v. Allstaff Med. Resources, Inc. (D. Colo. 2019). “29 C.F.R. § 552.99 . The federal regulations go on to define “domestic service employment” as “services of a household nature performed by an employee in or about a private home,” including “services performed by employees such as .”

Mason v. Pathfinders for Indep., Inc. (M.D. Fla. 2022). “See 29 C.F.R. § 552.99 . In any event, the Court finds that the FLSA’s overtime provisions directly apply to Plaintiff through § 207(l).”

Walsh v. At Home Care St. Louis, LLC (E.D. Mo. 2023). “§ 202 (a); 29 C.F.R. § 552.99 (“Congress in section 2(a) of the Act specifically found that the employment of persons in domestic service in households affects commerce.”

Smith v. 1st Abundant Home Care L L C (W.D. La. 2025). “” 29 C.F.R. § 552.99 . Accordingly, individual coverage applies to her allegations.”

Eusebia Cardenas v. Aragon Towers Condo. Ass'n, Inc. (11th Cir. 2012). “See 29 C.F.R. § 552.99 . 4 Here, however, Appellants did not move to amend their Complaint to include a violation of § 206(f) until the summary judgment hearing.”

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.