29 C.F.R. § 779.308

Employed within scope of exempt business

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

In order to meet the requirement of actual employment “by” the establishment, an employee, whether performing his duties inside or outside the establishment, must be employed by his employer in the work of the exempt establishment itself in activities within the scope of its exempt business. (See Davis v. Goodman Lumber Co., 133 F. 2d 52 (CA-4) (holding section 13(a)(2) exemption inapplicable to employees working in manufacturing phase of employer's retail establishment); Wessling v. Carroll Gas Co., 266 F. Supp. 795 (N.D. Iowa); Oliveira v. Basteiro, 18 WH Cases 668 (S.D. Texas). See also, Northwest Airlines v. Jackson, 185 F. 2d 74 (CA-8); Walling v. Connecticut Co., 154 F. 2d 522 (CA-2) certiorari denied, 329 U.S. 667; and Wabash Radio Corp. v. Walling, 162 F. 2d 391 (CA-6).)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases, 2005–2016 · leading case: Gieg v. Ddr, Inc., 407 F.3d 1038 (9th Cir. 2005).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Gieg v. Ddr, Inc., 407 F.3d 1038 (9th Cir. 2005). · cites it 2× “(2) Interpretive Regulations Invoking 29 C.F.R. § 779.308 , appellees argue that they do not come within the § 207(i) exception because they are not employed in activities that are within the scope of the dealerships’ exempt retail business.”

Doe v. Butler Amusements, Inc., 71 F. Supp. 3d 1125 (N.D. Cal. 2014). “” 29 C.F.R. § 779.308 . Section 779.309 further explains that an exemption ^ not be available for “employees who, *1136 although actually working in the establishment and even though employed by the same person who is the employer of all under section 3(d) of the Act, are not…”

Morales v. 22nd Dist. Agric. Assn. (Cal. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 3× “" Appellants' assert that this proposed instruction is a nearly verbatim quotation from 29 C.F.R. § 779.308 (2015).7 Appellants maintain that an employee cannot be exempt if he or she is not actually employed by an exempt establishment and that the trial court erred in refusing…”

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.