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. § 779.234

Establishments whose only regular employees are the owner or members of his immediate family

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

Section 3(s) provides that any “establishment which has as its only regular employees the owner thereof or the parent, spouse, child, or other member of the immediate family of such owner” shall not be considered to be an “enterprise” as described in section 3(r) or a part of any other enterprise. Further the sales of such establishment are not included for the purpose of determining the annual gross volume of sales of any enterprise for the purpose of section 3(s). The term “other member of the immediate family of such owner” is considered to include relationships such as brother, sister, grandchildren, grandparents, and in-laws but not distant relatives from separate households. The 1966 amendments extended the exception to include family operated establishments which only employ persons other than members of the immediate family infrequently, irregularly, and sporadically. (See general discussion in part 776 of this chapter.)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 1982–2019 · leading case: Donovan v. I & J, INC., 567 F. Supp. 93 (D.N.M. 1983).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Donovan v. I & J, INC., 567 F. Supp. 93 (D.N.M. 1983). “In addition, the Secretary has offered the following guidance: [t]he 1966 amendments extended the exception to include family operated establishments which only employ persons other than members of the immediate family infrequently, irregularly, and sporadically- *102 29 C.F.R.…”
Donovan v. Sutherland, 530 F. Supp. 748 (E.D. Mich. 1982). “With regard to the exemption, the Secretary has promulgated an interpretive rule which is found in 29 C.F.R. § 779.234 , which offers some guidance in interpreting the phraseology relative to the “only regular employees” language contained in the Act.”
Ladd v. Jamie Rose Klements DVM, LLC (S.D. Ohio 2019). “29 C.F.R. § 779.234 . While this interpretation is not binding on the Court, it may be given weight.”
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.