29 C.F.R. § 776.24

Travel in connection with construction projects

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

The Act also applies to employees who regularly travel across State lines in the performance of their duties, even though the construction project itself is not covered. 13 If an employee regularly transports persons, materials, or equipment between jobs across State lines, or to a covered project, even within the State, as part of his duties for the contractor, he would be covered. As in other situations, the Act would not apply if crossing State lines or transporting persons, materials or equipment by the employee was isolated or sporadic rather than regular and recurring. Also, ordinary home-to-work travel, even across State lines, is not covered.

13Reck v. Zarmacay, 264 App. Div. 520, 36 N.Y.S. (2d) 394; Colbeck v. Dairyland Creamery Co., 17 N.W. (2d) 262 (S. Ct. S.D.).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 13 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 2006–2025 · leading case: Josendis v. Wall to Wall Residence Repairs, Inc., 662 F.3d 1292 (11th Cir. 2011).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Josendis v. Wall to Wall Residence Repairs, Inc., 662 F.3d 1292 (11th Cir. 2011). · cites it 2× “engaged in [interstate] commerce or in the production of goods for [interstate] commerce”). Second, an employee is subject to enterprise coverage if he is “employed in an enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce,” 29 U.”

Joseph Thorne v. All Restoration Svcs. Inc., 448 F.3d 1264 (11th Cir. 2006). “23 (d)(2) (2005); 29 C.F.R. § 776.24 (2005). See, e.g., McLeod, 319 U.”

Andrade Romero v. Rbs Constr. Corp., Inc. (D.D.C. 2022). “” 29 C.F.R. § 776.24 . Plaintiffs therefore need only show that they regularly traveled across state lines for work.”

Sherman v. T & M Concrete Inc (N.D. Ala. 2019). “23 (d)(2); 29 C.F.R. § 776.24 ). Mr. Sherman’s well-pleaded allegations and evidence establish that he worked for a construction contracting business that operated in Fayette and Tuscaloosa Counties, Alabama.”

Ghess v. Kaid (E.D. Ark. 2020). “23 (d)(2); 29 C.F.R. § 776.24 ); see also 29 C.F.R. § 776.”

Bolden v. Callahan (E.D. Ark. 2022). “23 (d)(2); 29 C.F.R. § 776.24 ); see also 29 C.F.R. § 776.”

Folta v. Norfork Brewing Co. (W.D. Ark. 2022). “23 (d)(2); 29 C.F.R. § 776.24 ); see also 29 C.F.R. § 776.”

Guevara v. Lafise Corp. (S.D. Fla. 2022). “23 (d)(2); 29 C.F.R. § 776.24 ). See, e.g., McLeod v.”

Zambrana v. Scubavice Diving Ctr., LLC (M.D. Fla. 2024). “23 (d)(2) (2005); 29 C.F.R. § 776.24 (2005). Id. Although Plaintiff cites to his declaration to support his conclusory argument for individual coverage, the Court is provided without pinpoint citations or any indication of what facts within the declaration relate to individual…”

DeLuca v. MW Int'l Ventures LLC (S.D. Fla. 2025). “engaged in [interstate] commerce or in the production of goods for [interstate] commerce”). Second, an employee is subject to enterprise coverage if he is “employed in an enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce,” 29 U.”

DeLuca (S.D. Fla. 2025). “engaged in [interstate] commerce or in the production of goods for [interstate] commerce”). Second, an employee is subject to enterprise coverage if he is “employed in an enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce,” 29 U.”

Luis Carlos Josendis v. Wall to Wall Residence (11th Cir. 2011). “engaged in [interstate] commerce or in the production of goods for [interstate] commerce”). Second, an employee is subject to enterprise coverage if he is “employed in an enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce,” 29 U.”

Show all 13 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.