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

29 C.F.R. § 779.223

Control where ownership vested in individual or single organization

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

Ownership, sufficient to exercise “control,” of course, exists where total ownership is vested in a single person, family unit, partnership, corporation, or other single business organization. Ownership sufficient to exercise “control” exist also where there is more than 50 percent ownership of voting stock. (See West v. Wal-Mart, 264 F. Supp. 168 (W.D. Ark.).) But “control” may exist with much more limited ownership, and, in certain cases exists in the absence of any ownership. The mere ownership of stock in a corporation does not by itself establish the existence of the “control” referred to in the definition. The question whether the ownership in a particular case includes the right to exercise the requisite “control” will necessarily depend upon all the facts in the light of the statutory provisions.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1981–2023 · leading case: Gionfriddo v. Jason Zink, LLC, 769 F. Supp. 2d 880 (D. Maryland 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Gionfriddo v. Jason Zink, LLC, 769 F. Supp. 2d 880 (D. Maryland 2011). “The Fourth Circuit, in citing the administrative regulations issued under the FLSA, has noted that “[A] common business purpose includes activities which are directed to the same business objective or to similar objectives in which the group has an interest.”
William E. Brock, Sec'y, United States Dep't of Labor v. Farouk Hamad, (Two Cases), 867 F.2d 804 (4th Cir. 1989). “Not only did Ha-mad concede that he “controlled]” the activities of the enterprise but actually under his testimony, “control” by him qualified under 29 C.F.R. § 779.223 (1987), which provides that control “exists where total ownership is vested in a single person, family unit,…”
Breton, LLC v. Graphic Arts Mut. Ins., 446 F. App'x 598 (4th Cir. 2011). “’”) (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 779.223 (1987)); see also Fitzpatrick v.”
Marshall v. Sideris, 524 F. Supp. 521 (D. Neb. 1981). “Sufficient ownership to exercise control will be regarded as adequate to meet the common control requirement. 29 C.F.R. § 779.222 (1979).”
Walsh v. At Home Care St. Louis, LLC (E.D. Mo. 2023). “29 C.F.R. § 779.223 . “Unified operation” entails “combining, uniting, or organizing” the performance of related activities “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…”
DE-PAZ-EACOBAR v. Muskevitsch, 561 F. Supp. 2d 1209 (D. Or. 2008). “29 C.F.R. § 779.223 (c). Examples of independent contractors provided in the regulation are: repair services, window cleaning, transportation, warehousing, collection services, independent accounting firms, sign services, or advertising services.”
Darling v. Frank (10th Cir. 1997). “at 16; see also 29 C.F.R. § 779.223 (recognizing control exists when total ownership is vested in single partnership or corporation).”
Donovan v. Star Bakery, Inc., 626 F. Supp. 1208 (D.P.R. 1986). “And ownership sufficient to exercise “control” exists where there is more than 50% of the voting stock, 29 C.F.R. § 779.223 (1985). In the present case, Mr.”
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.