29 C.F.R. § 779.304

Illustrations of a single establishment

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

(a) The unit store ordinarily will constitute the establishment contemplated by the exemptions. The mere fact that a store is departmentalized will not alter the rule. For example, the typical large department store carries a wide variety of lines which ordinarily are segregated or departmentalized not only as to location within the store, but also as to operation and records. Where such departments are operated as integral parts of a unit, the departmentalized unit taken as a whole ordinarily will be considered to be the establishment contemplated by the exemptions, even if there is diversity of ownership of some of the departments, such as leased departments.

(b) Some stores, such as bakery or tailor shops, may produce goods in a back room and sell them in the adjoining front room. In such cases if there is unity of ownership and if the back room and the front room are operated by the employer as a single store, the entire premises ordinarily will be considered to be a single establishment for purposes of the tests of the exemption, notwithstanding the fact that the two functions of making and selling the goods, are separated by a partition or a wall. (See H. Mgrs. St., 1949, p. 27.)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1966–2024 · leading case: F. Ray Marshall, Etc. v. The New Hampshire Jockey Club, Inc., 562 F.2d 1323 (1st Cir. 1977).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

F. Ray Marshall, Etc. v. The New Hampshire Jockey Club, Inc., 562 F.2d 1323 (1st Cir. 1977). “29 C.F.R. § 779.304 . We believe the law to have been correctly summarized as follows: “[Sjimply because two business operations have a common ownership and there is a close economic relationship between these separate units, is not sufficient to make the units a single…”

Hodgson v. Robert Hall Clothes, Inc., 326 F. Supp. 1264 (D. Del. 1971). “Neither the Equal Pay Act nor the decisions thereunder define “establishment” as used in the Act.”

Hodgson v. City Stores, Inc., 332 F. Supp. 942 (M.D. Ala. 1971). “The applicable regulation, 29 C.F.R. § 779.304 , provides that “the unit store ordinarily will constitute the establishment * * *.”

Stevens v. Welcome Wagon Int'l Inc., 261 F. Supp. 227 (E.D. Pa. 1966). “” ( 29 C.F.R. § 779.304 ) However “ * * any fixed site, whether home or office, used by a salesman as a headquarters or for telephonic solicitation of sales must be construed as one of his employer’s place of business, even though the employer is not in any formal sense the…”

Lance Spikes v. Schumacher Auto Grp. Inc. (11th Cir. 2024). “29 C.F.R. § 779.304 (explaining that a “large department store” will constitute a single establishment, even though it “carries a wide va- riety of lines which ordinarily are segregated or departmentalized not only as to location within the store, but also as to operation and…”

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.