29 C.F.R. § 780.2

Exemptions from Act's requirements

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

The Act provides a number of specific exemptions from the general requirements described in § 780.1. Some are exemptions from the overtime provisions only. Others are from the child labor provisions only. Several are exemptions from both the minimum wage and the overtime requirements of the Act. Finally, there are some exemptions from all three—minimum wage, overtime pay, and child labor requirements. An employer who claims an exemption under the Act has the burden of showing that it applies (Walling v. General Industries Co., 330 U.S. 545; Mitchell v. Kentucky Finance Co., 359 U.S. 290). Conditions specified in the language of the Act are “explicit prerequisites to exemption” (Arnold v. Kanowsky, 361 U.S. 388). “The details with which the exemptions in this Act have been made preclude their enlargement by implication” and “no matter how broad the exemption, it is meant to apply only to” the specified activities (Addison v. Holly Hill, 322 U.S. 607; Maneja v. Waialua, 349 U.S. 254). Exemptions provided in the Act “are to be narrowly construed against the employer seeking to assert them” and their application limited to those who come “plainly and unmistakably within their terms and spirit” (Phillips v. Walling, 334 U.S. 490; Mitchell v. Kentucky Finance Co., 359 U.S. 290; Arnold v. Kanowsky, 361 U.S. 388).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1988–2022 · leading case: Jose Ageo Luna Vanegas v. Signet Builders, Inc., 46 F.4th 636 (7th Cir. 2022).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Jose Ageo Luna Vanegas v. Signet Builders, Inc., 46 F.4th 636 (7th Cir. 2022). · cites it 2× “See 29 C.F.R. § 780.2 . Like all FLSA exemp- tions, the agricultural exemption must be “narrowly con- strued against the employer seeking to assert [it]” and No.”

Adkins v. Mid-Am. Growers, Inc., 143 F.R.D. 171 (N.D. Ill. 1992). “See 29 C.F.R. §§ 780.2 and 780.10. That Mid-American may possess the sought after information is not a reason in itself to prohibit individualized discovery requests.”

Ruben Bracamontes v. The Weyerhaeuser Co., 840 F.2d 271 (5th Cir. 1988). “See 29 C.F.R. § 780.2 (1987). 33 . See Soliz v.”

Adkins v. Mid-Am. Growers, Inc., 141 F.R.D. 466 (N.D. Ill. 1992). “See 29 C.F.R. §§ 780.2 and 780.10. Here it is undisputed that defendant sells “hard goods,” such as ceramic and clay pots purchased from outside sources.”

Adkins v. Mid-Am. Growers, Inc., 831 F. Supp. 642 (N.D. Ill. 1993). “§ 213 ; see 29 C.F.R. §§ 780.2 and 780.10. If, however, during a given work-week employees are engaged in both exempt and nonexempt work, the overtime requirements of the FLSA apply to all work performed in that week.”

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.