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 D—Exemptions for Certain Retail or Service Establishments

29 C.F.R. § 779.303

“Establishment” defined; distinguished from “enterprise” and “business.”

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

As previously stated in § 779.23, the term establishment as used in the Act means a distinct physical place of business. The “enterprise,” by reason of the definition contained in section 3(r) of the Act and the tests enumerated in section 3(s) of the Act, may be composed of a single establishment. The term “establishment,” however, is not synonymous with the words “business” or “enterprise” when those terms are used to describe multiunit operations. In such a multiunit operation some of the establishments may qualify for exemption, others may not. For example, a manufacturer may operate a plant for production of its goods, a separate warehouse for storage and distribution, and several stores from which its products are sold. Each such physically separate place of business is a separate establishment. In the case of chain store systems, branch stores, groups of independent stores organized to carry on business in a manner similar to chain store systems, and retail outlets operated by manufacturing or distributing concerns, each separate place of business ordinarily is a separate establishment.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1977–2016 · leading case: Morales v. 22nd Dist. Agric. Ass'n, 26 Wage & Hour Cas.2d (BNA) 1286 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Morales v. 22nd Dist. Agric. Ass'n, 26 Wage & Hour Cas.2d (BNA) 1286 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016). “” ( 29 C.F.R. § 779.303 (2015).) “The term ‘establishment,’ however, is not synonymous with the words ‘business’ or ‘enterprise’ when those terms are used to describe multiunit operations.”
Doe v. Butler Amusements, Inc., 71 F. Supp. 3d 1125 (N.D. Cal. 2014). · cites it 2× “” 29 C.F.R. § 779.303 . In that situation, the two terms will have the same meaning.”
F. Ray Marshall, Etc. v. The New Hampshire Jockey Club, Inc., 562 F.2d 1323 (1st Cir. 1977). “But both the Secretary of Labor’s regulations and the case law indicate that ownership and control are not dispositive in determining whether or not an “establishment” is single or multiple.”
Hamilton v. Tulsa Cnty. Pub. Facilities Auth., 85 F.3d 494 (10th Cir. 1996). “29 C.F.R. § 779.303 provides us with illustrative examples of common ownership or operation.”
Adams v. Detroit Tigers, Inc., 961 F. Supp. 176 (E.D. Mich. 1997). “29 C.F.R. § 779.303 (“The term ‘establishment’ .”
Morales v. 22nd Dist. Agric. Assn. (Cal. Ct. App. 2016). “" ( 29 C.F.R. § 779.303 (2015).) "The term 'establishment,' however, is not synonymous with the words 'business' or 'enterprise' when those terms are used to describe multiunit operations.”
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.