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 780—EXEMPTIONS APPLICABLE TO AGRICULTURE, PROCESSING OF AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES, AND RELATED SUBJECTS UNDER THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT › Subpart B—General Scope of Agriculture
In order for practices other than actual farming operations to constitute “agriculture” within the meaning of section 3(f) of the Act, it is not enough that they be performed by a farmer or on a farm in connection with the farming operations conducted by such farmer or on such farm, as explained in §§ 780.129 through 780.143. They must also be performed “as an incident to or in conjunction with” these farming operations. The line between practices that are and those that are not performed “as an incident to or in conjunction with” such farming operations is not susceptible of precise definition. Generally, a practice performed in connection with farming operations is within the statutory language only if it constitutes an established part of agriculture, is subordinate to the farming operations involved, and does not amount to an independent business. Industrial operations (Holtville Alfalfa Mills v. Wyatt, 230 F. 2d 398) and processes that are more akin to manufacturing than to agriculture (Maneja v. Waialua, 349 U.S. 254; Mitchell v. Budd, 350 U.S. 473) are not included. This is also true when on-the-farm practices are performed for a farmer. As to when practices may be regarded as performed for a farmer, see § 780.143.
Notes of Decisions
Jose Ageo Luna Vanegas v. Signet Builders, Inc., 46 F.4th 636 (7th Cir. 2022).
· cites it 4× “392, 408 (1996) (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 780.144 ) (cleaned up). An interpretive rule explains that work falls within the ag- ricultural exemption “only if it [a] constitutes an established part of agriculture, [b] is subordinate to the farming opera- tions involved, and [c] does…”
Holly Farms Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 517 U.S. 392 (1996).
· cites it 2× “See 29 CFR § 780.144 (1995) (recognition by the Secretary of Labor that the "line between practices that are and those that are not performed `as an incident to or in conjunction with' such farming operations is not susceptible of precise definition").”
Artesia Dairy v. Agric. Labor Relations Bd., 185 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2495 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008).
“” ( 29 C.F.R. § 780.144 .) Examples of other practices that fall within secondary agriculture are office work and maintenance and protective work.”
Jimenez v. Duran, 287 F. Supp. 2d 979 (N.D. Iowa 2003).
· cites it 3× “The regulations also delve further into the distinction between activity that is “part of the agricultural activity” and activity that is “an independent business,” as follows: The character of a practice as a part of the agricultural activity or as a distinct business activity…”
Bills v. Cactus Fam. Farms, LLC (N.D. Iowa 2020).
· cites it 2× “2d at 989 (citing 29 C.F.R. § 780.144 ). “Generally, a practice performed in connection with farming operations is within the statutory language only if it constitutes an established part of agriculture, is subordinate to the farming operations involved, and does not amount to…”
Porter v. T.J. Crowder & Sons, LLC (D. Colo. 2024).
“29 C.F.R. § 780.144 . The Court must consider “the general relationship, if any, of the practice to farming as evidenced by common understanding, competitive factors, and the prevalence of its performance by farmers.”
Beukes v. Boehnke Waste Handling, LLC (D. Minnesota 2024).
“”) (cleaned up); see also 29 C.F.R. § 780.144 (“Generally, a practice performed in connection with farming operations is within the statutory language only if it constitutes an established part of agriculture, is subordinate to the farming operations involved, and does not…”
Gomez v. Epic Landscape Prods., L.C. (D. Kan. 2025).
“4th at 645 (work falls within the FLSA secondary agricultural exemption only if, among other things, it is “performed by a farmer or on a farm”) (citing 29 C.F.R. § 780.144 )). 96 Leone v. Owsley, 810 F.”
Eutolio A. Rodriguez v. Pure Beauty Farms, Inc., 503 F. App'x 772 (11th Cir. 2013).
“” 29 C.F.R. § 780.144 . When, as here, the practice is performed on “agricultural or horticultural commodities,” to determine whether “the practice is conducted as a separate business activity rather than as a part of agriculture,” consideration is given to, among other things:…”
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.