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 A—General

29 C.F.R. § 779.8

Basic support for interpretations

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

The ultimate decisions on interpretations of the Act are made by the courts (Mitchell v. Zachry, 362 U.S. 310; Kirschbaum v. Walling, 316 U.S. 517). Court decisions supporting interpretations contained in this bulletin are cited where it is believed they may be helpful. On matters which have not been determined by the courts, it is necessary for the Secretary of Labor and the Administrator to reach conclusions as to the meaning and the application of provisions of the law in order to carry out their responsibilities of administration and enforcement (Skidmore v. Swift, 323 U.S. 134). In order that these positions may be made known to persons who may be affected by them, official interpretations are issued by the Administrator on the advice of the Solicitor of Labor, as authorized by the Secretary (Reorg. Pl. 6 of 1950, 64 Stat. 1263; Gen. Ord. 45A, May 24, 1950; 15 FR 3290). As included in the regulations in this part, these interpretations are believed to express the intent of the law as reflected in its provisions as constructed by the courts and evidenced by its legislative history. References to pertinent legislative history are made in this part where it appears that they will contribute to a better understanding of the interpretations.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1971–2021 · leading case: John T. Dunlop v. City Elec., Inc., 527 F.2d 394 (5th Cir. 1976).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
John T. Dunlop v. City Elec., Inc., 527 F.2d 394 (5th Cir. 1976). “2d 292, 296-97 , “[although courts are not bound by interpretative bulletins, see 29 C.F.R. § 779.8 , they provide us with guidance simply because they reflect the position of those most experienced with the application of the Act”.”
Peter J. Brennan v. Great Am. Disc. & Credit Co., 477 F.2d 292 (5th Cir. 1973). “Illustrative of such establishments are: Grocery stores, hardware stores, clothing stores, coal dealers, furniture stores, restaurants, hotels, watch repair establishments, barber shops, valet shops, and other such local establishments.”
Doe v. Butler Amusements, Inc., 71 F. Supp. 3d 1125 (N.D. Cal. 2014). “29 C.F.R. § 779.8 (citing Skidmore v. Swift & Co.”
Schussler v. Emp. Consultants, Inc., 333 F. Supp. 1387 (N.D. Ill. 1971). “As part of the interpretive bulletin quoted above, the Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor has given a partial list of establishments to which the retail *1391 concept does not apply.”
Diggs v. Ovation Credit Servs., Inc., 449 F. Supp. 3d 1280 (M.D. Fla. 2020). “The bulletins persuasiveness depends upon its thoroughness, its consistency, and the validity of its reasoning.”
Johnson v. Mattress Warehouse, Inc., No. 2:20-cv-00891 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 16, 2021). “” 29 C.F.R. § 779.8 ; see also Skidmore v. Swift & Co.”
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.