29 C.F.R. § 783.37
Enforcement policy for non-seaman's work
In the enforcement of the Act, an employee will be regarded as “employed as a seaman” if his work as a whole meets the test stated in § 783.31, even though during the workweek he performs some work of a nature other than that which characterizes the service of a seaman, if such nonseaman's work is not substantial in amount. For enforcement purposes, the Administrator's position is that such differing work is “substantial” if it occupies more than 20 percent of the time worked by the employee during the workweek.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1986–2025 · leading case: McLaughlin v. Boston Harbor Cruise Lines, Inc., 419 F.3d 47 (1st Cir. 2005).
McLaughlin v. Boston Harbor Cruise Lines, Inc., 419 F.3d 47 (1st Cir. 2005). “attacks some of the Department of Labor’s regulations themselves (most notably the 20 percent rule in 29 C.F.R. § 783.37 ), as well as the interpretation of those regulations proposed in the Secretary’s amicus brief.”
Fast v. Applebee's Int'l, Inc., 638 F.3d 872 (8th Cir. 2011). “” 29 C.F.R. § 783.37 . “[S]uch differing work is ‘substantial’ if it occupies more than 20 percent of the time worked by the employee during the workweek.”
Lindsay Rafferty v. Denny's, Inc., 13 F.4th 1166 (11th Cir. 2021). “§§ 213 (a)(12), 207(k), 214(a)(15); 29 C.F.R. §§ 783.37 , 553.212(a), 552.6); Marsh, 905 F.”
Godard v. Alabama Pilot, Inc., 485 F. Supp. 2d 1284 (S.D. Ala. 2007). “” 29 C.F.R. § 783.37 . DOL interpretive bulletins and regulations have generally been afforded “great weight” by reviewing courts in applying the FLSA’s seaman exemption.”
Adams v. All Coast, 15 F.4th 365 (5th Cir. 2021). “See 29 C.F.R. § 783.37 ; see also Coffin, 771 F.”
Lynn Martin, Sec'y of Labor v. Leslie N. Bedell & Blue Water Marine, Catering, Inc., 955 F.2d 1029 (5th Cir. 1992). “29 C.F.R. § 783.37 (1991). 22 . Id. 23 . 29 C.”
Mcmahan v. Adept Process Servs., Inc., 786 F. Supp. 2d 1128 (E.D. Va. 2011). “Finally, a “seaman” will be regarded as such “even though during the workweek he performs some work of a nature other than that which characterizes the service of a seaman, if such nonseaman’s work is not substantial in amount,” and “such differing work is ‘substantial’ if it…”
Kyle Halle v. Galliano Marine Serv., LLC, 855 F.3d 290 (5th Cir. 2017). “at 279-80 (citing 29 C.F.R. § 783.37 ). This Court must “evaluate an employee’s duties based upon the character of the work he actually performs and not on what it is called or the place where it is performed.”
Elizabeth Dole, Sec'y of Labor, U.S. Dep't of Labor v. Petroleum Treaters, Inc., 876 F.2d 518 (5th Cir. 1989). “31, even though during the workweek he performs some work of a nature other than that which characterizes the service of a seaman, if such nonseaman’s work is not substantial in amount.”
Kaluom v. Stolt Offshore, Inc., 474 F. Supp. 2d 866 (S.D. Tex. 2007). “It is possible that maritime workers with different jobs on Defendant’s vessels, such as riggers, mechanics, oilers, and electricians, spend more than 20% of their time engaged in nonseaman’s work. Since some members of the proposed class may be FLSA seamen and some may not, hot…”
Pac. Merch. Shipping Ass'n v. Aubry, 918 F.2d 1409 (9th Cir. 1990). “29 C.F.R. § 783.37 (1989). This appeal involves workers who are FLSA-exempt “seamen” and workers who, while not exempted from the FLSA’s overtime pay provisions, are still “seamen” in the broader, general sense.”
Selby v. Yacht Starship, Inc., 624 F. Supp. 2d 1367 (M.D. Fla. 2008). “” 29 C.F.R. § 783.37 . Because the DOL bulletin describes this twenty percent rule as the DOL’s position “[f]or enforcement purposes,” 61 and because the Seventh Circuit omits to mention the rule in a recent opinion applying the seaman exemption, Harkins v.”
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.