29 C.F.R. § 779.0

Purpose of interpretative bulletin

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

It is the purpose of this part to provide an official statement of the views of the Department of Labor with respect to the application and meaning of those provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, which govern rights and obligations of employees and employers in the various enterprises in which retail sales of goods or services are made. The application of the Act to employment in such enterprises was greatly broadened by amendments effective September 3, 1961. The Act's application was extended to employment in additional retail and service enterprises by the Fair Labor Standards Amendments of 1966, effective February 1, 1967. Under the amended Act, there are many employees employed by retail or service establishments and in enterprises having such establishments engaged in the retail selling of goods or services who must be employed in compliance with its provisions. It is an objective of this part to make available in one place, for the guidance of those who may be concerned with the provisions of the law, the official interpretations of these provisions by which the Department of Labor will be guided in carrying out its responsibilities under the Act.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases, 1971–2016 · leading case: Hill v. Delaware North Companies Sportservice, Inc., 838 F.3d 281 (2d Cir. 2016).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Hill v. Delaware North Companies Sportservice, Inc., 838 F.3d 281 (2d Cir. 2016). “§ 779 ) (noting that the notice-and-comment rulemaking requirement was “not applicable because these are interpretive rules”).”

Peter J. Brennan, Sec'y of Labor, United States Dep't of Labor v. Goose Creek Consol. Indep. Sch. Dist., 519 F.2d 53 (5th Cir. 1975). · cites it 2× “The regulations, which were meant to state the Department of Labor's official interpretation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (see 29 C.F.R. 779.0), provide that "(T)he term 'establishment' .”

Herman v. Suwannee Swifty Stores, Inc., 19 F. Supp. 2d 1365 (M.D. Ga. 1998). “” See also 29 C.F.R. § 779.0 . The Eleventh Circuit has used the agency’s definitions to determine how to apply other ambiguous terms in reference to the FLSA.”

Winchell's Donut House, Div. of Denny's, Inc. v. United States Dep't of Labor, 526 F. Supp. 608 (D.D.C. 1980). “See generally 29 C.F.R. §§ 779.0 , 779.200, 779.504 (1979).”

Schussler v. Emp. Consultants, Inc., 333 F. Supp. 1387 (N.D. Ill. 1971). “, which discusses somewhat at length the requirement that, irrespective of its meeting the other statutory prerequisites, an establishment’s sales or services must contain a concept of being retail before it may be exempted under § 13(a) (2) from the minimum hour schedule…”

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.