29 C.F.R. § 779.309

Employed “in” but not “by.”

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

Since the exemptions by their terms apply to the employees “employed by” the exempt establishment, it follows that those exemptions will not extend to other employees who, 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 “employed by” the exempt establishment. Thus, traveling auditors, manufacturers' demonstrators, display-window arrangers, sales instructors, etc., who are not “employed by” an exempt establishment in which they work will not be exempt merely because they happen to be working in such an exempt establishment, whether or not they work for the same employer. (Mitchell v. Kroger Co., 248 F. 2d 935 (CA-8).) For example, if the manufacturer sends one of his employees to demonstrate to the public in a customer's exempt retail establishment the products which he has manufactured, the employee will not be considered exempt under section 13(a)(2) since he is not employed by the retail establishment but by the manufacturer. The same would be true of an employee of the central offices of a chain-store organization who performs work for the central organization on the premises of an exempt retail outlet of the chain (Mitchell v. Kroger Co., supra.)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1970–2019 · leading case: Senne v. Kansas City Royals Baseball Corp., 315 F.R.D. 523 (N.D. Cal. 2016).
Senne v. Kansas City Royals Baseball Corp., 315 F.R.D. 523 (N.D. Cal. 2016). “(citing 29 C.F.R. § 779.309 ). The creative professionals exemption also lends itself to classwide treatment, according to Plaintiffs, because the duties component of the analysis will depend on the standard activities of the minor leaguers.”
Doe v. Butler Amusements, Inc., 71 F. Supp. 3d 1125 (N.D. Cal. 2014). · cites it 2× “See 29 C.F.R. § 779.309 . Examples of employees who work “in” an establishment but are not employed “by” the establishment are “traveling auditors, manufacturers’ demonstrators, display-window arrangers, sales instructors.”
Shultz v. Hasam Realty Corp., 316 F. Supp. 1136 (S.D. Fla. 1970). “See 29 C.F.R. §§ 779.309 -.311 [republished April 9, 1970, 35 Federal Register 5879, et seq.”
KIm v. Detroit Med. Informatics, LLC d/b/a DMI (E.D. Mich. 2019). · cites it 2× “2014) (citing 29 C.F.R. § 779.309 ); see also Mitchell v.”
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.