29 C.F.R. § 779.214

“Business” purpose

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

The activities described in section 3(r) are included in an enterprise only when they are performed for a “business” purpose. Activities of eleemosynary, religious, or educational organization may be performed for a business purpose. Thus, where such organizations engage in ordinary commercial activities, such as operating a printing and publishing plant, the business activities will be treated under the Act the same as when they are performed by the ordinary business enterprise. (See Mitchell v. Pilgrims Holiness Church Corp., 210 F. 2d 879 (CA-7); cert. den. 347 U.S. 1013.) However, the nonprofit educational, religious, and eleemosynary activities will not be included in the enterprise unless they are of the types which the last sentence of section 3(r), as amended in 1966, declares shall be deemed to be performed for a business purpose. Such activities were not regarded as performed for a business purpose under the prior Act and are not so considered under the Act as it was amended in 1966 except for those activities listed in the last sentence of amended section 3(r). (See § 779.21.)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 24 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1977–2022 · leading case: Tony and Susan Alamo Foundation v. Secretary of Labor

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Tony and Susan Alamo Foundation v. Secretary of Labor (1985) scotus · cites it 2× “The Labor Department’s regulation defining “business purpose,” which is entitled to considerable weight in construing the Act, explicitly states: “Activities of eleemosynary, religious, or educational organization [sic] may be performed for a business purpose. Thus, where such…”

R. Alexander Acosta v. Cathedral Buffet (2018) ca6 · cites it 2× “In this case, although Cathedral Buffet stresses its religious nature, it does not contest the district court’s determination that the restaurant is an FLSA “enterprise” because it engages in competitive commercial activity.”

Locke v. ST. AUGUSTINE'S EPISCOPAL CHURCH (2010) nyed · cites it 2× “” 4 29 C.F.R. § 779.214 (1970). An organization that performs religious, educational, or charitable activities does not perform these activities for a “business purpose,” and thus does not constitute an enterprise, unless the activities compete in the marketplace with ordinary…”

Jacobs v. New York Foundling Hospital (2009) ca2 “1953 (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 779.214 (1984)), or “serve the general public in competition with ordinary commercial enterprises,” id.”

Arkansas Department of Economic Development v. William J. Clinton Presidential Foundation (2005) ark · cites it 2× “1953 (citing 29 C.F.R. § 779.214 (1984))). ADED contends that the trial court erred in finding that the AEZA included nonprofit businesses because the Consolidated Incentive Act of 2003, codified at Ark.”

Bowrin v. Catholic Guardian Society (2006) nysd “Specifically, activities performed in connection with the operation of a hospital, an institution primarily engaged in the care of the sick, the aged, the mentally ill or defective who reside on the premises of such institution, a school for mentally or physically handicapped or…”

Benton v. Laborers' Joint Training Fund (2015) dcd “” 29 CFR § 779.214 . The operative question in such cases is whether the organization’s activities “serve the general public in competition with ordinary commercial enterprises.”

Archie v. Grand Central Partnership, Inc. (1998) nysd “Defendants claim that the SSC, GCP, and 34th SP do not share a common business purpose because “[t]he PTE program is not intended to enhance the district in which activities are performed.” However, the entities did share a common business purpose, for the services provided by…”

Schleicher v. Salvation Army (2008) ca7 “” 29 C.F.R. § 779.214 . Much like the religious organization in the Alamo case, the Adult Rehabilitation Center that the plaintiffs administered operates thrift shops (five in number, with a total work force varying from 20 to 40) that sell donated goods to the general public.”

Reagor v. Okmulgee County Family Resource Center, Inc. (2012) ca10 “See 29 C.F.R. § 779.214 (requiring eleemosynary organization to perform activities for business purpose for FLSA coverage); cf.”

Ferman Shaliehsabou v. Hebrew Home of Greater Washington, Incorporated (2004) ca4 · cites it 2× “Quite clearly then, even absent a judicially-created “ministerial” exception, the Act does not cover employees engaged in the vast majority of activities that religious organizations perform. In this case, however, Congress has provided unequivocally that the activities of the…”

Malloy v. Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials (2013) dcd “1953 (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 779.214 (1984)). In determining whether a non-profit entity operates with a business purpose, courts examine “whether the non-profit is primarily engaging in competition in the public with commercial enterprises.”

Show all 24 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.