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 779—THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT AS APPLIED TO RETAILERS OF GOODS OR SERVICES › Subpart B—Employment to Which the Act May Apply: Basic Principles and Individual Coverage

29 C.F.R. § 779.103

Employees “engaged in commerce.”

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

Employees are “engaged in commerce” within the meaning of the Act when they are performing work involving or related to the movement of persons or things (whether tangibles or intangibles, and including information and intelligence) among the several States or between any State and any place outside thereof. (The statutory definition of commerce is contained in section 3(b) of the Act and is set forth in § 779.12.) The courts have made it clear that this includes every employee employed in the channels of such commerce or in activities so closely related to this commerce, as to be considered a part of it as a practical matter. (Court cases are cited in the discussion of this term in §§ 776.9-776.13 of this chapter). Typically, but not exclusively, employees engaged in interstate or foreign commerce include employees in distributing industries, such as wholesaling or retailing, who sell, handle or otherwise work on goods moving in interstate commerce as well as workers who order, receive, pack, ship, or keep records of such goods; clerical and other workers who regularly use the mails, telephone or telegraph for interstate communication; and employees who regularly travel across State lines while working.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 37 cases (22 in the last 5 years), 1973–2026 · leading case: Mays v. Midnite Dreams, Inc., 300 Neb. 485 (Neb. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Mays v. Midnite Dreams, Inc., 300 Neb. 485 (Neb. 2018). “See, also, 29 C.F.R. § 779.103 . Jian Long Li, supra note 38 , 35 F.”
Jian Long Li v. Li Qin Zhao, 35 F. Supp. 3d 300 (E.D.N.Y 2014). · cites it 3× “” 29 C.F.R. §§ 779.103 , 779.104 (emphasis added).”
Ethelberth v. Choice Sec. Co., 91 F. Supp. 3d 339 (E.D.N.Y 2015). “To be “engaged in commerce,” the employee must perform work “involving or related to the movement of persons or things (whether tangibles or intangibles, and including information and intelligence) among the several States or between any State and any place outside thereof.”
Locke v. St. Augustine's Episcopal Church, 690 F. Supp. 2d 77 (E.D.N.Y 2010). · cites it 2× “29 C.F.R. § 779.103 (1970) (noting that “workers who regularly use the mails, telephone or telegraph for interstate communication” “engage in commerce”).”
Wendy St. Elien v. All Cnty. Env't Servs., Inc., 991 F.3d 1197 (11th Cir. 2021). · cites it 2× “Consider, for example, 29 C.F.R. § 779.103 : Typically, but not exclusively, employees engaged in interstate or foreign commerce include employees in distributing industries, such as wholesaling or retailing, who sell, handle or otherwise work on goods moving in interstate…”
Rodriguez v. Almighty Cleaning, Inc., 784 F. Supp. 2d 114 (E.D.N.Y 2011). “” Shim, 2009 WL 211367 , at *2; *121 see also 29 C.F.R. § 779.103 . Enterprise coverage, however, does apply.”
Dean v. Pac. Bellwether, LLC, 996 F. Supp. 2d 1044 (N. Mar. I. 2014). · cites it 4× “at 809 ; see also 29 C.F.R. § 779.103 (“Employees are ‘engaged in commerce’ within the meaning of the Act when they are performing work involving or related to the movement of persons or things-”); McLeod, 319 U.”
Bowrin v. Catholic Guardian Soc'y, 417 F. Supp. 2d 449 (S.D.N.Y. 2006). “29 C.F.R. § 779.103 . As relevant to the instant action, an employee is engaged in commerce when regularly using the mails and telephone for interstate communication, or when regularly traveling across state lines while working.”
Jacobs v. New York Foundling Hosp., 483 F. Supp. 2d 251 (E.D.N.Y 2007). “29 C.F.R. § 779.103 . For example, an employee could be engaged in commerce by regularly using the mail or the telephone between states, or traveling across state lines.”
Kaur v. Royal Arcadia Palace, Inc., 643 F. Supp. 2d 276 (E.D.N.Y 2007). “29 C.F.R. § 779.103 . For example, an employee could be engaged in commerce by regularly using the mail or the telephone between states, or traveling across state lines.”
Nichols v. Mahoney, 608 F. Supp. 2d 526 (S.D.N.Y. 2009). “” 29 C.F.R. § 779.103 . The plaintiffs do not allege that they personally performed such work.”
Mays v. Midnite Dreams, 300 Neb. 485 (Neb. 2018). “See, also, 29 C.F.R. § 779.103 (2017). 36 Wirtz, supra note 31 , 323 F.”
Show all 37 citing cases →
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.