29 C.F.R. § 780.128

General statement on “secondary” agriculture

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

The discussion in §§ 780.106 through 780.127 relates to the direct farming operations which come within the “primary” meaning of the definition of “agriculture.” As defined in section 3(f) “agriculture” includes not only the farming activities described in the “primary” meaning but also includes, in its “secondary” meaning, “any practices (including any forestry or lumbering operations) performed by a farmer or on a farm as an incident to or in conjunction with such farming operations, including preparation for market delivery to storage or to market or to carriers for transportation to market.” The legislative history makes it plain that this language was particularly included to make certain that independent contractors such as threshers of wheat, who travel around from farm to farm to assist farmers in what is recognized as a purely agricultural task and also to assist a farmer in getting his agricultural goods to market in their raw or natural state, should be included within the definition of agricultural employees (see Bowie v. Gonzalez, 117 F. 2d 11; 81 Cong. Rec. 7876, 7888).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases, 1992–2007 · leading case: Robert B. Reich, Sec'y of Labor, United States Dep't of Labor v. Tiller Helicopter Servs., Inc. & William J. Tiller, Sr., 8 F.3d 1018 (5th Cir. 1993).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Robert B. Reich, Sec'y of Labor, United States Dep't of Labor v. Tiller Helicopter Servs., Inc. & William J. Tiller, Sr., 8 F.3d 1018 (5th Cir. 1993). “29 C.F.R. § 780.128 . Recognizing that aerial spraying operations are analogous to wheat threshing operations, and that aerial spraying necessarily involves off-farm activities that fall within the agricultural exemption, the Secretary has exempted by regulation pilots and…”

Adkins v. Mid-Am. Growers, Inc., 141 F.R.D. 466 (N.D. Ill. 1992). “One of the critical issues in this lawsuit concerns the requirement that exempt agricultural activities be performed in connection with a farmer’s own farming.”

Armando Sariol v. Florida Crystals Corp., 490 F.3d 1277 (11th Cir. 2007). “29 C.F.R. § 780.128 (emphasis added) (quoting Bowie v.”

Jimenez v. Duran, 287 F. Supp. 2d 979 (N.D. Iowa 2003). · cites it 2× “29 C.F.R. § 780.128 . ii. Work “on a farm.”

Adkins v. Mid-Am. Growers, Inc., 831 F. Supp. 642 (N.D. Ill. 1993). “Because the inquiry is into whether the employees performed exempt or non-exempt work, the question in the case is with respect to the frequency of the employees’ performance of activities that are not agricultural in nature and not the frequency of Mid-American’s involvement in…”

Reich v. Tiller Helicopter Servs., Inc. (5th Cir. 1993). “29 C.F.R. § 780.128 . Recognizing that aerial spraying operations are analogous to wheat threshing operations, and that aerial spraying necessarily involves off-farm activities that fall within the agricultural exemption, the Secretary has exempted by regulation pilots and…”

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.