C.F.R. » Title 29 » CHAPTER V—WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR › SUBCHAPTER B—STATEMENTS OF GENERAL POLICY OR INTERPRETATION NOT DIRECTLY RELATED TO REGULATIONS › PART 778—OVERTIME COMPENSATION › Subpart A—General Considerations

29 C.F.R. § 778.2

Coverage and exemptions not discussed

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

This part 778 does not deal with the general coverage of the Act or various specific exemptions provided in the statute, under which certain employees within the general coverage of the wage and hours provisions are wholly or partially excluded from the protection of the Act's minimum-wage and overtime-pay requirements. Some of these exemptions are self-executing; others call for definitions or other action by the Administrator. Regulations and interpretations relating to general coverage and specific exemptions may be found in other parts of this chapter.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1966–2001 · leading case: Cash v. Conn Appliances, Inc., 2 F. Supp. 2d 884 (E.D. Tex. 1997).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Cash v. Conn Appliances, Inc., 2 F. Supp. 2d 884 (E.D. Tex. 1997). · cites it 4× “, 29 C.F.R. §§ 778.2 , 778.107. For example, it excludes from coverage individuals serving in “bona fide executive, administrative, or professional capacities.”
Samson v. Apollo Resources, Inc., 242 F.3d 629 (5th Cir. 2001). “See 29 C.F.R. § 778.2 (noting that the subpart of 778, which includes the FWW method, does not discuss any specific exemptions to the overtime or minimum wage payment requirements of the FLSA); Griffin v.”
Marrero Cabrera v. Caribbean Refining Co., 93 P.R. Dec. 250 (1966). · cites it 2× “Las partes proponen dos soluciones: La empresa recu-rrente, que adoptemos la definición que aparece en el reglamento administrativo federal, 29 C.F.R. 778.2(c) y (d) (1964), que lee como sigue: (5) “ (c) La semana de trabajo.”
Marrero Cabrera v. Caribbean Refining Co., 93 P.R. 246 (1966). · cites it 2× “The defendant suggests that we adopt the definition which appears in the federal administrative regulations, 29 C.F.R. 778.2(c) and (d) (1964), which reads thus: 5 “(c) The workweek.”
— 29 C.F.R. § 778.2(c) — 2 cases
Marrero Cabrera v. Caribbean Refining Co., 93 P.R. Dec. 250 (1966). “Las partes proponen dos soluciones: La empresa recu-rrente, que adoptemos la definición que aparece en el reglamento administrativo federal, 29 C.F.R. 778.2(c) y (d) (1964), que lee como sigue: (5) “ (c) La semana de trabajo.”
Marrero Cabrera v. Caribbean Refining Co., 93 P.R. 246 (1966). “The defendant suggests that we adopt the definition which appears in the federal administrative regulations, 29 C.F.R. 778.2(c) and (d) (1964), which reads thus: 5 “(c) The workweek.”
— 29 C.F.R. § 778.2(d) — 2 cases
Marrero Cabrera v. Caribbean Refining Co., 93 P.R. Dec. 250 (1966). “Las partes proponen dos soluciones: La empresa recu-rrente, que adoptemos la definición que aparece en el reglamento administrativo federal, 29 C.F.R. 778.2(c) y (d) (1964), que lee como sigue: (5) “ (c) La semana de trabajo.”
Marrero Cabrera v. Caribbean Refining Co., 93 P.R. 246 (1966). “The defendant suggests that we adopt the definition which appears in the federal administrative regulations, 29 C.F.R. 778.2(c) and (d) (1964), which reads thus: 5 “(c) The workweek.”
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.