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
Generally, the term “common business purpose” will encompass activities whether performed by one person or by more than one person, or corporation, or other business organization, which are directed to the same business objective or to similar objectives in which the group has an interest. The scope of the term “enterprise” encompasses a single business entity as well as a unified business system which performs related activities for a common business purpose. What is a “common business purpose” in any particular case involves a practical judgment based on the facts in the light of the statutory provisions and the legislative intent. The answer ordinarily will be readily apparent from the facts. The facts may show that the activities are related to a single business objective or that they are so operated or controlled as to form a part of a unified business system which is directed to a single business objective. In such cases, it will follow that they are performed for a common business purpose. Where, however, the facts show that the activities are not performed as a part of such enterprise but for an entirely separate and unrelated business, they will be considered performed for a different business purpose and will not be a part of that enterprise. The application of these principles is considered in more detail in part 776 of this chapter.
Notes of Decisions
Gionfriddo v. Jason Zink, LLC, 769 F. Supp. 2d 880 (D. Maryland 2011).
“(quoting 29 C.F.R. § 779.213 ). Here, both Taverns clearly have the same business objective, that is, to sell food and beverages to paying customers.”
Morgan v. Speakeasy, LLC, 625 F. Supp. 2d 632 (N.D. Ill. 2007).
“” 29 C.F.R. § 779.213 . As noted, South and SpeakEasy considered themselves to be “sister” restaurants and both had the same business objective.”
Nelson v. Long Lines Ltd., 335 F. Supp. 2d 944 (N.D. Iowa 2004).
“” See 29 C.F.R. § 779.213 . Although Long Lines and Manhattan Beach, Inc.”
Flores v. Act Event Servs., Inc., 55 F. Supp. 3d 928 (N.D. Tex. 2014).
“” 29 C.F.R. § 779.213 . If a business qualifies as an enterprise, it must still satisfy both a dollar volume test and commerce standard to fall within the FLSA’s enterprise coverage.”
Jackson v. Art of Life, Inc., 836 F. Supp. 2d 226 (E.D. Pa. 2011).
“” 29 C.F.R. § 779.213 . At trial, counsel for defense suggested that the single enterprise theory is only relevant in cases where an employee works up to 40 hours for one employer, but works additional hours for another, so that it is apparent that the two employers worked…”
Jackson v. Airways Parking Co., 297 F. Supp. 1366 (N.D. Ga. 1969).
“” 29 C.F.R. 779.213. It seems that both commonly owned companies have as their purpose parking the cars of those using the Atlanta Municipal Airport.”
Donovan v. I & J, INC., 567 F. Supp. 93 (D.N.M. 1983).
“, at 848, citing the Wage-Hour Administrator; see also 29 C.F.R. § 779.213 (1982). I & J, Inc. was created to further the financial interests of the Ruttlers.”
Martin v. Deiriggi, 985 F.2d 129 (4th Cir. 1992).
“” 29 C.F.R. § 779.213 . The district court found that the motel and restaurant were “coordinated and interdependent” operations, directed toward the purpose of providing the complimentary services of lodging, food, and entertainment to travellers.”
Gonzalez v. Old Lisbon Restaurant & Bar LLC, 820 F. Supp. 2d 1365 (S.D. Fla. 2011).
“" 29 C.F.R. § 779.213 states that a "common business purpose" encompasses activities "directed to the same business objective or to similar objectives in which the group has an interest.”
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.