29 C.F.R. § 776.6

Coverage not dependent on place of work

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

Except for the general geographical limitations discussed in § 776.7, the Act contains no prescription as to the place where the employee must work in order to come within its coverage. It follows that employees otherwise coming within the terms of the Act are entitled to its benefits whether they perform their work at home, in the factory, or elsewhere. 18 The specific provisions of the Act relative to regulation of homework serve to emphasize this fact. 19

18Walling v. American Needlecrafts, 139 F. 2d 60 (C.A. 6); Walling v. Twyeffort Inc., 158 F. 2d 944 (C.A. 2); McComb v. Homeworkers' Handicraft Cooperative, 176 F. 2d 633 (C.A. 4).

19 See 6(a)(2); Sec. 11(d).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 1 case, 2009–2009 · leading case: Dager v. City of Phoenix, 646 F. Supp. 2d 1085 (D. Ariz. 2009).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Dager v. City of Phoenix, 646 F. Supp. 2d 1085 (D. Ariz. 2009). · cites it 2× “139 Plaintiffs argue that 29 C.F.R. § 776.6 expressly provides for FLSA coverage whether employees “perform their work at home, in the factory, or elsewhere.”

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.