As used in the Act, the term establishment, which is not specially defined therein, refers to a “distinct physical place of business” rather than to “an entire business or enterprise” which may include several separate places of business. This is consistent with the meaning of the term as it is normally used in business and in government, is judicially settled, and has been recognized in the Congress in the course of enactment of amendatory legislation (Phillips v. Walling, 324 U.S. 490; Mitchell v. Bekins Van & Storage Co., 352 U.S. 1027; 95 Cong. Rec. 12505, 12579, 14877; H. Rept. No. 1453, 81st Cong., 1st Sess., p. 25). As appears more fully elsewhere in this part, this is the meaning of the term as used in sections 3(r), 3(s), 6(d), 7(i), 13(a), 13(b), and 14 of the Act.
Notes of Decisions
Chen v. Major League Baseball, 6 F. Supp. 3d 449 (S.D.N.Y. 2014).
· cites it 9× “” 29 C.F.R. § 779.23 ; see also id. § 779.203 (“The term establishment means a distinct physical place of business rather than an entire business or enterprise.”
Morales v. 22nd Dist. Agric. Ass'n, 26 Wage & Hour Cas.2d (BNA) 1286 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016).
“’ ” ( 29 C.F.R. § 779.23 (2015).) An “ ‘enterprise’ ” may be “composed of a single establishment.”
Chen v. Major League Baseball Props., Inc., 798 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 2015).
“Additionally, the currently applicable DOL regulations define “establishment” for the purposes of Section 13(a) as a “ ‘distinct physical place of business,’ ” as opposed to “ ‘an entire business or enterprise’ which may include several separate places of business.”
Alston v. DIRECTV, Inc., 254 F. Supp. 3d 765 (D.S.C. 2017).
“§ 203 (r)(1), (s)) (citing, inter alia, 29 C.F.R. §§ 779.23 , 779.303); see also Hill v.”
Doe v. Butler Amusements, Inc., 71 F. Supp. 3d 1125 (N.D. Cal. 2014).
· cites it 3× “See 29 C.F.R. § 779.23 . These rules are not binding on courts but are followed to the extent that they are persuasive based on the thoroughness and consistency of their reasoning.”
Jackson v. Airways Parking Co., 297 F. Supp. 1366 (N.D. Ga. 1969).
· cites it 2× “2d 1912 , 1913; 29 C.F.R. 779.23, including cases and congressional history cited therein.”
Chessin v. Keystone Resort Mgmt., Inc., 184 F.3d 1188 (10th Cir. 1999).
“at 288-89 ; see also 29 C.F.R. 779.23 (1998) (the word “establishment,” as it appears in § 213(b), means “a ‘distinct physical place of business’ rather than .”
Marshall v. JC Penney Co., Inc., 464 F. Supp. 1166 (N.D. Ohio 1979).
“29 C.F.R. § 779.23 . The Secretary did not submit or offer any evidence respecting any other single establishment in the Penney chain apart from certain "snap shot” statistics dealing collectively with all Penney stores nationwide regardless of the size or type of store and the…”
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.