29 C.F.R. § 779.238

Engagement in described activities determined on annual basis

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

As set forth in the preceding section an enterprise to be a “covered enterprise” must have at least some employees engaged in certain described activities. This requirement will be determined on an annual basis in order to give full effect to the intent of Congress. Thus, it is not necessary that the enterprise have two or more employees engaged in the named activities every week. An enterprise described in section 3(s)(1) or (5) of the prior Act or in section 3(s)(1) of the Act as it was amended in 1966 will be considered to have employees engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce, including the handling, selling or otherwise working on goods that have been moved in or produced for commerce by any person, if during the annual period which it uses in calculating its annual sales for purposes of the other conditions of these sections, it regularly and recurrently has at least two or more employees engaged in such activities. On the other hand, it is plain that an enterprise that has employees engaged in such activities only in isolated or sporadic occasions, will not meet this condition.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 26 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1985–2021 · leading case: Exime v. E.W. Ventures, Inc., 591 F. Supp. 2d 1364 (S.D. Fla. 2008).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Exime v. E.W. Ventures, Inc., 591 F. Supp. 2d 1364 (S.D. Fla. 2008). · cites it 5× “§ 203 (s)(l)(A) and 29 C.F.R. § 779.238 : “Enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce” means an enterprise that— [H]as employees engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce, or that has employees handling, selling, or otherwise…”

Sec'y Labor v. Timberline S., LLC, 925 F.3d 838 (6th Cir. 2019). “Regardless, coverage here is not premised on employees' incidental use of office items; rather, it is premised on employees' regular and recurrent use of logging and harvesting equipment that is used to carry out the company's commercial activity of harvesting timber.”

Polycarpe v. E&S Landscaping Serv., Inc., 616 F.3d 1217 (11th Cir. 2010). “Along the same line, Congress, we expect, did not preclude a de minimis rule where the total value of the pertinent "goods” and "materials” is small.”

Carol King v. West Virginia's Choice, Inc., 766 S.E.2d 387 (W. Va. 2014). · cites it 3× “§ 203 (s)(1)(A)(1998); 23 see also 29 C.F.R. § 779.238 . 24 The undisputed evidence in the record demonstrates that at any given time, WV Choice employs 2000 direct care workers who are “handling .”

Flores v. Act Event Servs., Inc., 55 F. Supp. 3d 928 (N.D. Tex. 2014). · cites it 2× “29 C.F.R. § 779.238 (emphasis added). c. Employee Rights Under the FLSA This case concerns three specific employee rights under the FLSA and related regulations.”

Lamonica v. Safe Hurricane Shutters, Inc., 578 F. Supp. 2d 1363 (S.D. Fla. 2008). · cites it 2× “29 C.F.R. § 779.238 . The term goods does not include “goods after their delivery into the actual physical possession of the ultimate consumer thereof other than a producer, manufacturer, or processor thereof.”

Sims v. Unation, LLC, 292 F. Supp. 3d 1286 (M.D. Fla. 2018). “29 C.F.R. § 779.238 (emphasis added). In other words, it is not sufficient to have "a single employee who is directly engaged in commerce," or to have "two or more employees who only engage in commerce on isolated occasions.”

Jeffrey Scott v. K. W. Max Investments, Inc., 256 F. App'x 244 (11th Cir. 2007). “29 C.F.R. § 779.238 (emphasis added). The purchase of lumber from Louisiana constitutes just such an isolated incident.”

Williams v. Signature Pools & Spas, Inc., 615 F. Supp. 2d 1374 (S.D. Fla. 2009). · cites it 2× “29 C.F.R. § 779.238 . Plaintiffs argue that two or more of Defendants’ employees engaged in interstate commerce because (i) Stephanie Taggart and Jennifer 4 worked in Signature’s office, and (ii) there were laborers that handled product specially ordered for clients.”

Dent v. Giaimo, 606 F. Supp. 2d 1357 (S.D. Fla. 2009). “§ 208 (b)(1)(A); 29 C.F.R. § 779.238 . Defendant concedes prong two.”

Ford B. Ford, Under Sec'y of Labor, United States Dep't of Labor v. James Sharp, Jr., D/B/A Parkside Washateria, 758 F.2d 1018 (5th Cir. 1985). “29 C.F.R. 779.238 (1984). 7 . Id. 8 . National Automatic Laundry & Cleaning Council v.”

Flores v. Nuvoc, Inc., 610 F. Supp. 2d 1349 (S.D. Fla. 2008). “29 C.F.R. § 779.238 . Since it is conceded that the neither the Plaintiffs nor the Defendants were engaged in commerce 3 or in the production of goods for commerce, the legal question is whether the Plaintiffs were “handling, selling, or otherwise working on goods or materials…”

Show all 26 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.