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 C—Agriculture as It Relates to Specific Situations

29 C.F.R. § 780.206

Planting and lawn mowing

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

(a) The planting of trees and bushes is within the scope of agriculture where it constitutes a step in the production, cultivation, growing, and harvesting of agricultural or horticultural commodities, or where it constitutes a practice performed by a farmer or on a farm as an incident to or in conjunction with farming operations (as where it is part of the subordinate marketing operations of the grower of such trees or bushes). Thus, employees of the nurseryman who raised such nursery stock are doing agricultural work when they plant the stock on private or public property, trim, spray, brace, and treat the planted stock, or perform other duties incidental to its care and preservation. Similarly, employees who plant fruit trees and berry stock not raised by their employer would be considered as engaged in agriculture if the planting is done on a farm as an incident to or in conjunction with the farming operation on that farm.

(b) On the other hand, the planting of trees and bushes on residential, business, or public property is not agriculture when it is done by employees of an employer who has not grown the trees and bushes, or who, if he has grown them, engages in the planting operations as an incident, not to his farming operations, but to landscaping operations which include principally the laying of sod and the construction of pools, walks, drives, and the like.

(c) The mowing of lawns, except where it can be considered incidental to farming operations, is not agricultural work.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1982–2004 · leading case: Ruben Bracamontes v. The Weyerhaeuser Co., 840 F.2d 271 (5th Cir. 1988).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Ruben Bracamontes v. The Weyerhaeuser Co., 840 F.2d 271 (5th Cir. 1988). “29 C.F.R. § 780.206 (a) (1987). 27 . See Bresgal, 833 F.”
Farrell v. Pike, 342 F. Supp. 2d 433 (M.D.N.C. 2004). “See 29 C.F.R. § 780.206 (b) (it is not agriculture when employee tends plants grown by another).”
Ragland v. Pittman Garden Ctr., Inc., 820 S.W.2d 450 (Ark. 1991). · cites it 2× “2d 222 (1989); 29 C.F.R. § 780.206 . We concluded, on the basis of that regulation, that agricultural labor may indeed include time spent in delivering products to customers under some circumstances but should not be included if the delivery is merely incidental to providing…”
Richlawn Turf Farms, Inc. v. United States Dep't of Treasury Internal Revenue Serv. (In re Richlawn Turf Farms, Inc.), 26 B.R. 206 (D. Colo. 1982). “206 (29 C.F.R. 780.206); therefore, the plaintiff asks the Court to apply this definition of agriculture to the facts of this case.”
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.