29 C.F.R. § 779.319

A retail or service establishment must be open to general public

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

The location of the retail or service establishment, whether in an industrial plant, an office building, a railroad depot, or a government park, etc., will make no difference in the application of the exemption and such an establishment will be exempt if it meets the tests of the exemption. Generally, however, an establishment, wherever located, will not be considered a retail or service establishment within the meaning of the Act, if it is not ordinarily available to the general consuming public. An establishment, however, does not have to be actually frequented by the general public in the sense that the public must actually visit it and make purchases of goods or services on the premises in order to be considered as available and open to the general public. A refrigerator repair service shop, for example, is available and open to the general public even if it receives all its orders on the telephone and performs all of its repair services on the premises of its customers.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 9 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1969–2025 · leading case: Charlot v. Ecolab, Inc., 136 F. Supp. 3d 433 (E.D.N.Y 2015).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Charlot v. Ecolab, Inc., 136 F. Supp. 3d 433 (E.D.N.Y 2015). · cites it 4× “” 29 C.F.R. § 779.319 . Thus, in addition to a dedicated, physical space, an “establishment” must make its products and services accessible to the public for sale.”

Jackson v. Airways Parking Co., 297 F. Supp. 1366 (N.D. Ga. 1969). · cites it 3× “will make no difference in the application of the exemption and such an establishment will be exempt if it meets the tests of the exemption.”

Donovan v. I & J, INC., 567 F. Supp. 93 (D.N.M. 1983). “’ 29 C.F.R. § 779.319 .” There is no question that business in question here is a retail establishment within the contemplation of the Act.”

Wirtz v. Keystone Readers Serv., Inc., 418 F.2d 249 (5th Cir. 1969). · cites it 3× “” 29 C.F.R. § 779.319 . Putting together the requirement of availability and the disclaimer of actual visitations, we read the Secretary’s Bulletin as establishing a standard of consumer access as the test for the kind of establishment which will receive the retail exemption,…”

Shultz v. Crotty Bros. Texas, Inc., 310 F. Supp. 761 (E.D. Tex. 1970). “29 C.F.R. § 779.319 . A factually restricted clientele is typical of many restaurant operations located in industrial plants, office buildings, government installations, hospitals, and colleges.”

Futrell v. Columbia Club, Inc., 338 F. Supp. 566 (S.D. Ind. 1971). “Furthermore, these regulations, 29 CFR § 779.319 , have been cited and followed by the courts.”

Donovan v. Micro-Chart Co., 653 F. Supp. 1159 (S.D. Ohio 1986). “Compare 29 C.F.R. Section 779.319. For these reasons, the Court finds that Defendants have failed to carry their burden of showing their entitlement to the exemption contained in 29 U.”

Volpe v. Vmsb, LLC (S.D. Fla. 2025). “29 C.F.R. § 779.319 . It is undisputed that Defendant meets the first two requirements, as more than seventy-five percent of the annual dollar volume received by Gianni’s is for services not for resale.”

Hodgson v. Servomation-Ajax Co., 323 F. Supp. 1047 (N.D. Miss. 1971). “319 (29 CFR Part 779.319) provides, inter alia, as follows: “§ 779.”

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.