29 C.F.R. § 779.201

The place of the term “enterprise” in the Act

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

The term “enterprise” is defined in section 3(r) of the Act and, wherever used in the Act, is governed by this definition. (§ 779.21(a) provides that portion of the definition of “enterprise” which is pertinent with respect to retail and service enterprises.) The term is a key in determining the applicability of the Act to these businesses. The “enterprise” is the unit for determining whether the conditions of section 3(s)(1) through (5) of the prior Act and section 3(s)(1) through (4) of the amended Act, including, where applicable, the requisite dollar volume are met. The “enterprise” is also the unit for determining which employees not individually covered by the Act are entitled to the minimum wage, overtime, and equal pay benefits, and to the child labor protection, under sections 6, 7, and 12 of the Act. In general, if the “enterprise” comes within any of the categories described in section 3(s)(1) through (5) of the prior Act or section 3(s)(1) through (4) of the amended Act, all employees employed in the “enterprise” are covered by the Act and, regardless of their duties, are entitled to the Act's benefits unless a specific exemption applies.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1991–2020 · leading case: Reich v. Gateway Press, Inc., 13 F.3d 685 (3rd Cir. 1994).
Reich v. Gateway Press, Inc., 13 F.3d 685 (3rd Cir. 1994). “See 29 C.F.R. § 779.201 . By using the three part test for enterprise, courts have a way to gauge the economic reality of a group of affiliated businesses for the purposes of applying the FLSA.”
Griffin v. Daniel, 768 F. Supp. 532 (W.D. Va. 1991). “65 ; 29 C.F.R. § 779.201 (1990). Thus, the question of enterprise status becomes very important to claimants like Brian Griffin who allegedly were not directly engaged in commerce or the production of goods for commerce.”
Ghess v. Kaid (E.D. Ark. 2020). “§ 207 (a)(2)(C); 29 C.F.R. § 779.201 . To determine whether multiple business entities constitute a single enterprise, courts examine three factors: (1) related activities; (2) unified operation or common control; (3) common business purpose.”
Biziko v. Van Horne (N.D. Tex. 2019). “3d at 586 (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 779.201 ). The term “establishment,” as used in the FLSA, “refers to a ‘distinct physical place of business’ rather than to ‘an entire business or enterprise’ which may include several separate places of business.”
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.