29 C.F.R. § 780.106

Employment in “primary” agriculture is farming regardless of why or where work is performed

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

When an employee is engaged in direct farming operations included in the primary definition of “agriculture,” the purpose of the employer in performing the operations is immaterial. For example, where an employer owns a factory and a farm and operates the farm only for experimental purposes in connection with the factory, those employees who devote all their time during a particular workweek to the direct farming operations, such as the growing and harvesting of agricultural commodities, are considered as employed in agriculture. It is also immaterial whether the agricultural or horticultural commodities are grown in enclosed houses, as in greenhouses or mushroom cellars, or in an open field. Similarly, the mere fact that production takes place in a city or on industrial premises, such as in hatcheries, rather than in the country or on premises possessing the normal characteristics of a farm makes no difference (see Jordan v. Stark Brothers Nurseries, 45 F. Supp. 769; Miller Hatcheries v. Boyer, 131 F. 2d 283; Damutz v. Pinchbeck, 158 F. 2d 882).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1970–2015 · leading case: Herman v. Cont'l Grain Co., 80 F. Supp. 2d 1290 (M.D. Ala. 2000).
Herman v. Cont'l Grain Co., 80 F. Supp. 2d 1290 (M.D. Ala. 2000). · cites it 2× “Furthermore, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 780.106 , persons engaged in activities listed as primary agriculture are included within the exemption, and the purpose of the employer in performing the activity or the place where it is performed are "immaterial.”
Baldwin v. Iowa Select Farms, L.P., 6 F. Supp. 2d 831 (N.D. Iowa 1998). · cites it 2× “Furthermore, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 780.106 , persons engaged in activities listed as primary agriculture are included within the exemption, and the purpose of the employer in performing the activity or the place where it is performed are “immaterial.”
John Barks v. Silver Bait LLC, 802 F.3d 856 (6th Cir. 2015). “7, 1978) (holding the agricultural exemption applies to the raising of race horses); 29 C.F.R. § 780.106 (“[WJhere an employer owns a factory and a farm and operates the farm only for experimental purposes in eonnec-' tion with the factory, those employees .”
Bobby Hearnsberger v. L. E. 'Cotton' Gillespie, D/B/A Eudora Livestock Auction Co., Inc., & Eudora Livestock Auction Co., Inc., 435 F.2d 926 (8th Cir. 1970). “” The Administrator’s Interpretative Bulletin (29 C.F.R. 780.106) provides, in pertinent part, as follows: “Section 13(a) (6) exempts ‘any employee employed in * * *’.”
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.