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. § 779.317

[Reserved]

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 34 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1963–2023 · leading case: Gatto v. Mortg. Specialists of Illinois, Inc., 442 F. Supp. 2d 529 (N.D. Ill. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Gatto v. Mortg. Specialists of Illinois, Inc., 442 F. Supp. 2d 529 (N.D. Ill. 2006). · cites it 3× “” 29 C.F.R. § 779.317 (citing Mitchell). However, Congress repealed § 213(a)(2) in 1989.”
Takacs v. AG Edwards & Sons, Inc., 444 F. Supp. 2d 1100 (S.D. Cal. 2006). · cites it 2× “at 21 , citing to 29 C.F.R. § 779.317 . Defendant first argues that all of its “branch activities are considered ‘retail’ in the industry.”
Ramon Alvarado v. Corp. Cleaning Servs., I, 782 F.3d 365 (7th Cir. 2015). “The phrase is found in a Department of Labor regulation, 29 C.F.R. § 779.317 , which states that There are types of establishments in industries where it is not readily apparent whether a retail concept exists and whether or not the exemption can apply.”
Wang v. Chinese Daily News, Inc., 435 F. Supp. 2d 1042 (C.D. Cal. 2006). “However, 29 C.F.R. § 779.317 , which is a “partial list of establishments lacking ‘retail concept,’ ” specifically states that newspaper publishers are “establishments to which the retail concept does not apply.”
Matrai v. DirecTV, LLC, 168 F. Supp. 3d 1347 (D. Kan. 2016). “” They also consider the regulations that offer partial listings of those establishments that lack a “retail concept,” 29 C.F.R. § 779.317 , and those establishments that “may be recognized as retail,” 29 C.”
Jackson v. Airways Parking Co., 297 F. Supp. 1366 (N.D. Ga. 1969). · cites it 2× “However, 29 C.F.R. 779.317 states that airports lack a retail concept and therefore cannot qualify for the retail exemption.”
Robert B. Reich, Sec'y of Labor United States Dep't of Labor v. Delcorp, Inc., a Corp. Arizona Carpet Cleaning, Inc., a Corp., 3 F.3d 1181 (8th Cir. 1993). “See 29 C.F.R. §§ 779.317 , 779.318 (1992); Martin v.”
Charlot v. Ecolab, Inc., 136 F. Supp. 3d 433 (E.D.N.Y 2015). “29 C.F.R. § 779.317 . The regulations also include a non-exhaustive list of establishments whose sales or services may be recognized as retail, indicating that they are part'of industries with a "retail concept.”
Alvarado v. Corp. Cleaning Serv., Inc., 719 F. Supp. 2d 935 (N.D. Ill. 2010). “29 C.F.R. § 779.317 . Plaintiffs contend that, because CCS is engaged in the maintenance of office buildings, and provides services akin to those of the various listed contractors, it lacks a retail concept.”
Don Schoenhals, B. Winston Munn, Leonard E. Essary, Rosa Essary v. Don Cockrum, D/B/A Sooner Inventory Serv., 647 F.2d 1080 (10th Cir. 1981). “See 29 C.F.R. § 779.317 . We hold that Cockrum’s business does not fall within the retail concept of the Act and that it is not plainly and unmistakably within the terms and spirit of the exemption.”
Gieg v. Ddr, Inc., 407 F.3d 1038 (9th Cir. 2005). “See also, 29 C.F.R. § 779.317 (listing finance companies and insurance agencies as establishments that lack a “retail concept”).”
Wirtz v. Modern Trashmoval, Inc., 323 F.2d 451 (4th Cir. 1963). · cites it 2× “” See 29 C.F.R. § 779.317 (rev. as of Jan. 1, 1963).”
Show all 34 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.