29 C.F.R. § 779.101

Guiding principles for applying coverage and exemption provisions

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

It is clear that Congress intended the Fair Labor Standards Act to be broad in its scope. “Breadth of coverage is vital to its mission.” (Powell v. U.S. Cartridge Co., 339 U.S. 497.) An employer who claims an exemption under the Act has the burden of showing that it applies. (Walling v. General Industries Co., 330 U.S. 545; Mitchell v. Kentucky Finance Co., 359 U.S. 290; Fleming v. Hawkeye Pearl Button Co., 113 F. 2d 52.) Conditions specified in the language of the Act are “explicit prerequisites to exemption.” (Arnold v. Kanowsky, 361 U.S. 388.) “The details with which the exemptions in this Act have been made preclude their enlargement by implication.” (Addison v. Holly Hill, 322 U.S. 60; Maneja v. Waialua, 349 U.S. 254.) Exemptions provided in the Act “are to be narrowly construed against the employer seeking to assert them” and their application limited to those who come plainly and unmistakably within their terms and spirit; this restricted or narrow construction of the exemptions is necessary to carry out the broad objectives for which the Act was passed. (Phillips v. Walling, 324 U.S. 490; Mitchell v. Kentucky Finance Co., supra; Arnold v. Kanowsky, supra; Calaf v. Gonzalez, 127 F. 2d 934; Bowie v. Gonzalez, 117 F. 2d 11; Mitchell v. Stinson, 217 F. 2d 210; Fleming v. Hawkeye Pearl Button Co., 113 F. 2d 52.)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1982–2021 · leading case: Jones v. SCO Family of Services

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Jones v. SCO Family of Services (2016) nysd “at 256-57 (cit *349 ing 29 C.F.R. § 779.101 ). An employer is subject to § 207(a) coverage either (1) if the employer was “an enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce regardless of whether the plaintiff was so engaged,” or (2) if an employee…”

Bowrin v. Catholic Guardian Society (2006) nysd “” 29 C.F.R. § 779.101 . Moreover, an employer who claims an exemption under the Act has the burden of showing that it applies.”

Probert v. Family Centered Services of Alaska, Inc. (2011) ca9 “2007) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also 29 C.F.R. § 779.101 (“An employer who claims an exemption under the Act has the burden of showing that it applies.”

Jacobs v. New York Foundling Hospital (2007) nyed “29 C.F.R. § 779.101 . This litigation concerns séction 7 of the FLSA, which requires employers subject to the statute to provide their workers with overtime premium pay.”

Locke v. ST. AUGUSTINE'S EPISCOPAL CHURCH (2010) nyed “…Universal Communications of Miami, Inc.">591 F.3d 101, 104 (2d Cir.2010); 29 C.F.R. § 779.101 (1970). a. Enterprise Coverage The FLSA does not cover St. Augustine’s as an enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce. The FLSA cover”

Russell v. Belmont College (1982) tnmd · cites it 2× “See also 29 C.F.R. 779.101 (1981). Understandably, a liberal and broad reading of the coverage of the FLSA also means that exemptions from the Act are to be narrowly construed.”

Terrazas v. Carla Vista Sober Living LLC (2021) azd “1993); see also 20 29 C.F.R. § 779.101 (“An employer who claims an exemption under the Act has the burden 21 of showing that it applies.”

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.