29 C.F.R. § 778.3

Interpretations made, continued, and superseded by this part

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

On and after publication of this part in the Federal Register, the interpretations contained therein shall be in effect and shall remain in effect until they are modified, rescinded or withdrawn. This part supersedes and replaces the interpretations previously published in the Federal Register and Code of Federal Regulations as part 778 of this chapter. Prior opinions, rulings and interpretations and prior enforcement policies which are not inconsistent with the interpretations in this part or with the Fair Labor Standards Act as amended are continued in effect; all other opinions, rulings, interpretations, and enforcement policies on the subjects discussed in the interpretations in this part are rescinded and withdrawn. Questions on matters not fully covered by this part may be addressed to the Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, DC 20210, or to any Regional Office of the Division.

[46 FR 7309, Jan. 23, 1981]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 1975–2017 · leading case: Dresser Indus., Inc. v. Alaska Dep't of Labor, 633 P.2d 998 (Alaska 1981).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Dresser Indus., Inc. v. Alaska Dep't of Labor, 633 P.2d 998 (Alaska 1981). “Pointing to the section of the Statehood Act which continued in full force and effect all Territorial laws except as modified or changed by the Statehood Act itself, by the state constitution, or by the legislature of the new state, Dresser argues that coverage, meaning, and…”

Friedrich v. U.S. Comput. Servs., Inc., 833 F. Supp. 470 (E.D. Pa. 1993). · cites it 2× “As plaintiff points out, the Industrial Board knew how to use the word "salary” when it adopted § 231. See, 34 Pa.Code §§ 231.”

Chevalier v. Gen. Nutrition Centers, Inc., 177 A.3d 280 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2017). “The regulation was codified at 29 C.F.R. § 778.3 (b)(5) until 1965, when it was redesig-nated as 29 C.”

Manuel Flores Hernandez v. 65 De Infanteria Thom McAn Inc., 516 F.2d 1293 (1st Cir. 1975). “See 29 C.F.R. § 778.3 (1963). The regulations provide that the regular rate is “determined by dividing his total remuneration for employment in any workweek by the total number of hours actually worked by him in that workweek for which such compensation was paid.”

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.