29 C.F.R. § 779.211

Status of activities which are not “related.”

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

Activities which are not related even if performed by the same employer are not included as a part of the enterprise. The receipts from the unrelated activities will not be counted toward the annual dollar volume of sales or business under section 3(s) and the employees performing such unrelated activities will not be covered merely because they work for the same employer. Common ownership standing alone does not bring unrelated activities within the scope of the same enterprise. If, for example, one individual owns or controls a bank, a filing station, and a factory, the mere fact of common ownership will not make them one enterprise. However, if it appears that there is a reasonable relationship of all the activities to a single business purpose a different conclusion might be warranted. Activities which are not “related” will be treated separately for purposes of the tests contained in section 3(s)(1) through (5) of the prior Act and section 3(s)(1) through (4) of the amended Act. For example, in the case where a single company operates retail grocery stores and also engages in an unrelated business of constructing homes, one “enterprise” for purposes of section 3(s)(1) of both the prior and the amended Act will consist of the retail grocery stores and any activities related to them, and home construction activities will constitute a separate enterprise. The latter will not be included in determining whether the retail business enterprise meets the conditions of section 3(s)(1), and the construction employees will not be covered merely because the retail business is covered. The construction business will be considered separately under section 3(s)(4) of the poor Act and section 3(s)(3) of the amended Act.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases, 1970–2008 · leading case: Bowrin v. Catholic Guardian Soc'y, 417 F. Supp. 2d 449 (S.D.N.Y. 2006).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Bowrin v. Catholic Guardian Soc'y, 417 F. Supp. 2d 449 (S.D.N.Y. 2006). · cites it 2× “” 29 C.F.R. § 779.211 . ii. “Unified Operation” or “Common Control” As noted by the DOL, “[t]he terms ‘unified operation’ and ‘common control’ do not have a fixed legal or technical definition.”

Reich v. Gateway Press, Inc., 13 F.3d 685 (3rd Cir. 1994). “29 C.F.R. § 779.211 . The enterprise test is the way to determine whether to combine the dollar figures.”

Ruggeri v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharm., Inc., 585 F. Supp. 2d 308 (D. Conn. 2008). “29 C.F.R. § 779.211 Defendant’s argument that “the definition of ‘sale’ must be construed broadly” *318 (Def.”

James D. Hodgson, Sec'y of Labor, United States Dep't of Labor v. Travis Edwards, Inc., 465 F.2d 1050 (5th Cir. 1972). “See 29 C.F.R. § 779.211 . The maid-elevator operator could not alone impart “enterprise” coverage of the business.”

Griffin v. Daniel, 768 F. Supp. 532 (W.D. Va. 1991). “” 29 C.F.R. § 779.211 (1990). The profit motive alone has long been understood to be insufficient to support a finding of a common business purpose.”

Shultz v. Travis-Edwards, Inc., 320 F. Supp. 834 (W.D. La. 1970). “) 29 C.F.R. 779.211. While the question is not totally free from doubt, we do not believe that operation of a concession stand and an office building are related activities.”

Brock v. Exec. Towers, Inc., 796 F.2d 698 (4th Cir. 1986). “See 29 C.F.R. § 779.211 (1985). Even excluding the values of those rentals, however, the enterprise easily meets the jurisdictional amount through the sales of the Outhouse Inn and the bookstores alone.”

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.