29 C.F.R. § 780.119

Employment in the specified operations generally

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

Employees are employed in the raising of livestock, bees, fur-bearing animals or poultry only if their operations relate to animals of the type named and constitute the “raising” of such animals. If these two requirements are met, it makes no difference for what purpose the animals are raised or where the operations are performed. For example, the fact that cattle are raised to obtain serum or virus or that chicks are hatched in a commercial hatchery does not affect the status of the operations under section 3(f).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases, 1998–2020 · leading case: Wenigar v. Johnson, 712 N.W.2d 190 (Minn. Ct. App. 2006).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Wenigar v. Johnson, 712 N.W.2d 190 (Minn. Ct. App. 2006). “” 29 C.F.R. § 780.119 . Livestock has been defined by the DOL as “domestic animals ordinarily raised or used on farms,” which includes “cattle (both dairy and beef cattle), sheep, swine, horses, mules, donkeys, and goats.”

John Barks v. Silver Bait LLC, 802 F.3d 856 (6th Cir. 2015). · cites it 2× “Plaintiffs rely on 29 C.F.R. § 780.119 , which provides, under the heading “Employment in the specified operations generally”: “Employees are employed in the raising of livestock, bees, fur-bearing animals or poultry only if their operations relate to animals of the type named.”

Baldwin v. Iowa Select Farms, L.P., 6 F. Supp. 2d 831 (N.D. Iowa 1998). · cites it 3× “29 C.F.R. § 780.119 . “Livestock” in turn is defined in the regulations as follows: The meaning of the term “livestock” as used in section 3(f) is confined to the ordinary use of the word and includes only *841 domestic animals ordinarily raised or used on farms .”

Jimenez v. Duran, 287 F. Supp. 2d 979 (N.D. Iowa 2003). “” 29 C.F.R. § 780.119 . Here, the Jimenezs’ operations did, indeed, relate to animals of the type named, specifically, chickens, so that the question is whether their operations constituted “raising such animals.”

Bills v. Cactus Fam. Farms, LLC (N.D. Iowa 2020). · cites it 2× “(quoting 29 C.F.R. § 780.119 ). The court did not conduct a secondary agriculture analysis because it already found plaintiff was engaged in primary agriculture.”

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.