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 C—Employment to Which the Act May Apply; Enterprise Coverage
The coverage, exemption and other provisions of the Act depend, in part, on the scope of the terms employer, establishment, or enterprise. As explained more fully in part 776 of this chapter, these terms are not synonymous. The term employer has been defined in the Act since its inception and has a well established meaning. As defined in section 3(d), it includes, with certain stated exceptions, any person acting directly or indirectly in the interest of an employer in relation to an employee. (See § 779.19.) The term establishment means a distinct physical place of business rather than an entire business or enterprise. (See § 779.23.) The term enterprise was not used in the Act prior to the 1961 amendments, but the careful definition and the legislative history of the 1961 and 1966 amendments provide guidance as to its meaning and application. As defined in the Act, the term enterprise is roughly descriptive of a business rather than of an establishment or of an employer although on occasion the three may coincide. The enterprise may consist of a single establishment (see § 779.204(a)) which may be operated by one or more employers; or it may be composed of a number of establishments which may be operated by one or more employers (see § 779.204(b)). The enterprise is not necessarily coextensive with the entire business activities of an employer; a single employer may operate more than one enterprise (see § 779.204(c)). The Act treats as separate enterprises different businesses which are unrelated to each other even if they are operated by the same employer.
Notes of Decisions
Hart v. Rick's Cabaret Int'l Inc., 967 F. Supp. 2d 901 (S.D.N.Y. 2013).
“” 29 C.F.R. § 779.203 (citation omitted). In any event, applying the integrated enterprise test would not change the outcome of plaintiffs' motion.”
Brennan v. Arnheim & Neely, Inc., 410 U.S. 512 (1973).
· cites it 2× “[3] This is demonstrated by 29 CFR § 779.203 , which provides that the "terms [`employer,' `establishment,' and `enterprise'] are not synonymous.”
Chen v. Major League Baseball, 6 F. Supp. 3d 449 (S.D.N.Y. 2014).
“It is of no consequence that MLB “coordinated and controlled” the events of All Star Week from its corporate office, (Am. Compl. ¶ 145), because physical distinctness, rather than operation or control, is what distinguishes an “enterprise” from an “establishment” to which it may…”
Gibbs v. Montgomery Cnty. Agric. Soc'y, 140 F. Supp. 2d 835 (S.D. Ohio 2001).
· cites it 2× “The second provision cited by Gibbs, 29 C.F.R. § 779.203 , merely defines and distinguishes the terms “enterprise,” “establishment” and “employer.”
Shultz v. Arnheim & Neely, Inc., 324 F. Supp. 987 (W.D. Pa. 1969).
“” 29 C.F.R. § 779.203 (b). We are confronted here with a situation analagous to the case of a chain’s store in a supermarket.”
Brock v. Cruz, 357 F. Supp. 3d 581 (S.D. Tex. 2019).
“"Enterprise" and "employer" are "not synonymous," 29 C.F.R. § 779.203 , and it is the "enterprise" - not the plaintiff's employer - that is "the unit for determining which employees not individually covered by the" FLSA are still entitled to its protections, itation index="29"…”
Donovan v. Shteiwi, 563 F. Supp. 118 (S.D. Ohio 1983).
“29 C.F.R. § 779.203 . We find that the food and beverages served by the two establishments are of such a different type that they are not related for purposes of finding an enterprise under the Act.”
Stevens v. Welcome Wagon Int'l Inc., 261 F. Supp. 227 (E.D. Pa. 1966).
“Establishment is not defined in the Act, but is explained and distinguished from enterprise in 29 C.F.R. § 779.203 “Distinction between ‘enterprise,’ and ‘establishment’ and ‘employer’ ”.”
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.