29 C.F.R. § 779.9

Reliance on interpretations

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

The interpretations of the law contained in this part are official interpretations which may be relied upon as provided in section 10 of the Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947. In addition, the Supreme Court has recognized that such interpretations of the Act “provide a practical guide to employers and employees as to how the office representing the public interest in its enforcement will seek to apply it” and “constitute a body of experience and informed judgment to which courts and litigants may properly resort for guidance.” Further, as stated by the Court: “Good administration of the Act and good judicial administration alike require that the standards of public enforcement and those for determining private rights shall be at variance only where justified by very good reasons.” (Skidmore v. Swift, 323 U.S. 134.) Some of the interpretations in subpart D of this part relating to the scope of the exemption provided for retail or service establishments are interpretations of this exemption as it appeared in the original Act before amendment in 1949 and 1961, which have remained unchanged because they were consistent with the amendments. These interpretations may be said to have Congressional sanction because “When Congress amended the Act in 1949 it provided that pre-1949 rulings and interpretations by the Administrator should remain in effect unless inconsistent with the statute as amended. 63 Stat. 920.” (Mitchell v. Kentucky Finance Co., 359 U.S. 290.)

Notes of Decisions
Arthur J. Goldberg, Sec'y of Labor, United States Dep't of Labor v. Harry Sorvas, Individually & Doing Bus. as Merit Prot. Serv., 294 F.2d 841 (3rd Cir. 1961). “, 29 C.F.R. § 779.9 (Supp.1961). The shopping service rendered by Sorvas has no more claim to recognition at retail than an advertising agency.”
Goldberg v. Willmark Serv. Sys., Inc., 215 F. Supp. 577 (D. Minnesota 1961). “, 29 C.F.R. § 779.9 (Supp.1961). “The shopping service rendered by Sorvas has no more claim to recognition at retail than an advertising agency.”
Goldstein v. Dabanian, 291 F.2d 208 (3rd Cir. 1961). “…in which it is located.” . See the administrative regulation describing the impact of the legislative history. 29 C.F.R. § 779.9 (b).”
Charles Goldstein v. Megerdich Dabanian & Emma K. Dabanian T/a East Tioga Check Serv.. Louis Sernovitz, Herbert Sabulsky & Sidney Singer v. Irving Hertz, T/a Terminal Check Serv., 291 F.2d 208 (3rd Cir. 1961). · cites it 3× “…in which it is located.' 7 See the administrative regulation describing the impact of the legislative history. 29 C.F.R. 779.9(b)”
— 29 C.F.R. § 779.9(b) — 1 case
Charles Goldstein v. Megerdich Dabanian & Emma K. Dabanian T/a East Tioga Check Serv.. Louis Sernovitz, Herbert Sabulsky & Sidney Singer v. Irving Hertz, T/a Terminal Check Serv., 291 F.2d 208 (3rd Cir. 1961). “…in which it is located.' 7 See the administrative regulation describing the impact of the legislative history. 29 C.F.R. 779.9(b)”
— 29 C.F.R. § 779.9(c) — 1 case
Charles Goldstein v. Megerdich Dabanian & Emma K. Dabanian T/a East Tioga Check Serv.. Louis Sernovitz, Herbert Sabulsky & Sidney Singer v. Irving Hertz, T/a Terminal Check Serv., 291 F.2d 208 (3rd Cir. 1961). “…in which it is located.' 7 See the administrative regulation describing the impact of the legislative history. 29 C.F.R. 779.9(b)”
— 29 C.F.R. § 779.9(d) — 1 case
Charles Goldstein v. Megerdich Dabanian & Emma K. Dabanian T/a East Tioga Check Serv.. Louis Sernovitz, Herbert Sabulsky & Sidney Singer v. Irving Hertz, T/a Terminal Check Serv., 291 F.2d 208 (3rd Cir. 1961). “…in which it is located.' 7 See the administrative regulation describing the impact of the legislative history. 29 C.F.R. 779.9(b)”
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.