29 C.F.R. § 779.217
“Unified operation” defined
Webster defines the word “unify” to mean “to cause to be one; to make into a unit; to unite.” The pertinent definition of “operation” is a method or way of operating, working or functioning. Since the term “unified operation” has reference to the method of performing the related activities, it means combining, uniting, or organizing their performance so that they are in effect a single business unit or an organized business system which is an economic unit directed to the accomplishment of a common business purpose. The term “unified operation” thus includes a business which may consist of separate segments but which is conducted or operated as a unit or as a single business for a common business purpose.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1969–2023 · leading case: John T. Dunlop, Sec'y of Labor, United States Dep't of Labor v. Mitchell N. Ashy, 555 F.2d 1228 (5th Cir. 1977).
John T. Dunlop, Sec'y of Labor, United States Dep't of Labor v. Mitchell N. Ashy, 555 F.2d 1228 (5th Cir. 1977). “29 C.F.R. § 779.217 (1975). See also 29 C.”
Bowrin v. Catholic Guardian Soc'y, 417 F. Supp. 2d 449 (S.D.N.Y. 2006). “” 29 C.F.R. § 779.217 . According to the DOL regulations, “control” includes the “power to direct, restrict, regulate, govern, or administer the performance of the activities.”
Archie v. Grand Cent. P'ship, Inc., 997 F. Supp. 504 (S.D.N.Y. 1998). “” 29 C.F.R. § 779.217 . “Control” is the power to “direct, restrict, regulate, govern, or administer the performance” of the related activities, and “common control” exists “where the performance of the described activities are controlled by one person or by a number of persons,…”
William E. Brock, Sec'y, United States Dep't of Labor v. Farouk Hamad, (Two Cases), 867 F.2d 804 (4th Cir. 1989). “” 29 C.F.R. § 779.217 (1987). While it may be, as the defendant argues, that the defendant’s operations do not fit easily within this definition of “unified operation,” the contention, even if of merit, is unimportant to decision herein since it is clear from the defendant’s own…”
Locke v. St. Augustine's Episcopal Church, 690 F. Supp. 2d 77 (E.D.N.Y 2010). ““Common control” exists between entities “where the performance of the described activities are controlled by one person or by a number of persons,- corporations, or other organizational units acting together.”
Flores v. Act Event Servs., Inc., 55 F. Supp. 3d 928 (N.D. Tex. 2014). “Absent a “unified operation,” the “related activities” must be under “common control,” meaning the “described activities [must be] controlled by one person or by a number of persons, corporations, or other organizational units acting together.”
Usery v. Mohs Realty Corp., 424 F. Supp. 20 (W.D. Wis. 1976). “29 C.F.R. § 779.217 (1975). Further the separate segments may accomplish such unification through arrangements, franchises, grants, leases, or other arrangements which have the effect of aligning or integrating the activities of one company with the activities of others so that…”
Jackson v. Airways Parking Co., 297 F. Supp. 1366 (N.D. Ga. 1969). “218. A unified operation may exist where, as in the instant ease, the activities are separately owned or controlled.”
Brock v. Cruz, 357 F. Supp. 3d 581 (S.D. Tex. 2019). “at 1232 (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 779.217 ). This "unification may be accomplished 'through agreements, franchises, grants, leases, or other arrangements which have the effect of aligning or integrating the activities of one company with the activities of others.”
Dole v. Odd Fellows Home Endowment Bd., 912 F.2d 689 (4th Cir. 1990). “” 29 C.F.R. § 779.217 (1989). “Control” is the power to “direct, restrict, regulate, govern, or administer the performance” of the related activities, and “common control” exists “where the performance of the described activities are controlled by one person or by a number of…”
Pilkington v. Abuela's Cocina LLC (D. Ariz. 2019). “” 29 C.F.R. § 779.217 . Plaintiff asserts Defendants do satisfy 15 the requirements of enterprise coverage under the FLSA, alleging that Brother John’s and 16 Abuela’s were under common control.”
Walsh v. At Home Care St. Louis, LLC (E.D. Mo. 2023). “” 29 C.F.R. § 779.217 . Defendant Vasser owned At Home Care and CDS.”
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.