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 785—HOURS WORKED › Subpart C—Application of Principles

29 C.F.R. § 785.23

Employees residing on employer's premises or working at home

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

An employee who resides on his employer's premises on a permanent basis or for extended periods of time is not considered as working all the time he is on the premises. Ordinarily, he may engage in normal private pursuits and thus have enough time for eating, sleeping, entertaining, and other periods of complete freedom from all duties when he may leave the premises for purposes of his own. It is, of course, difficult to determine the exact hours worked under these circumstances and any reasonable agreement of the parties which takes into consideration all of the pertinent facts will be accepted. This rule would apply, for example, to the pumper of a stripper well who resides on the premises of his employer and also to a telephone operator who has the switchboard in her own home. (Skelly Oil Co. v. Jackson, 194 Okla. 183, 148 P. 2d 182 (Okla. Sup. Ct. 1944; Thompson v. Loring Oil Co., 50 F. Supp. 213 (W.D. La. 1943).)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 75 cases (18 in the last 5 years), 1969–2025 · leading case: Maryam Balbed v. Eden Park Guest House, LLC
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Maryam Balbed v. Eden Park Guest House, LLC (2018) ca4 · cites it 16× “The district court agreed with Eden Park, concluding that 29 C.F.R. § 785.23 carved out an exception to the other FLSA regulatory requirements for recordkeeping and calculation of in-kind wages.”
Myers v. Baltimore County MD (2002) ca4 · cites it 23× “The district court, concluding that the parties had reached a "reasonable agreement" as provided under 29 C.F.R. § 785.23 (2001), entered an order granting summary judgment to Baltimore Parks.”
Charlene Brigham, as Personal Representative of the Estate of James Brigham Carl Hall Gary Millsap Donald E. Reed v. Eug (2004) ca9 · cites it 5× “16 Most pertinent to the present case is 29 C.F.R. § 785.23 , which provides: An employee who resides on his employer’s premises on a permanent basis or for extended periods of time is not considered as working all the time he is on the premises.”
Irma Ruth Halferty v. Pulse Drug Company, Inc., D/B/A Pulse Ambulance Service (1987) ca5 · cites it 5× “Pulse Drug also contends that the district court did not properly apply the exception to the FLSA’s minimum wage requirements for homeworkers, 29 C.F.R. § 785.23 , or the exception for time spent “waiting to be engaged.”
Schryvers v. Coulee Community Hospital (2007) washctapp · cites it 5× “29 C.F.R. § 785.23 ; 29 U.S.C. § 213 (a)(1).”
Lonnie Brock, Plaintiffs-Appellees/cross-Appellants v. City of Cincinnati John Shirey, City Manager, Defendants-Appellan (2001) ca6 · cites it 3× “2 Cincinnati’s motion for summary judgment argued that the parties had reached a reasonable agreement as to work performed at home, which 29 C.F.R. § 785.23 recognizes as binding.”
Paula Leever v. Carson, City of Consolidated Municipality of Carson City (2004) ca9 · cites it 3× “The City contends that it was exempt from the overtime provisions of the FLSA pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 785.23 because it had a “reasonable agreement” to compensate Leever for her overtime work by way of a biweekly flat fee.”
Parker Drilling Management Services, Ltd. v. Newton (2019) scotus “§ 207 (a). Therefore, this California law does not provide the rule of decision on the OCS, and to the extent Newton's OCS-based claims rely on that law, they necessarily fail.”
Sydney A. TerMorshuizen v. Spurwink Services, Inc. (2019) me · cites it 6× “2 [¶8] On March 23, 2018, Spurwink moved for summary judgment on the grounds that its sleep time compensation policy was in compliance with federal law, specifically 29 C.F.R. § 785.23 (2018), and was reasonable as a matter of law.”
Joseph H. Holzapfel, and Others Similarly Situated v. Town of Newburgh, Ny Charles M. Kehoe, Chief of Police, Town of Ne (1998) ca2 · cites it 2× “While the Eighth Circuit in Rudolph applied 29 C.F.R. § 785.23 (1997), which provides that in light of the difficulty of calculating the precise number of hours an employee works at home, “any reasonable agreement of the parties which takes into consideration all of the…”
Irma Halferty v. Pulse Drug Company, Inc. D/B/A Pulse Ambulance Service (1989) ca5 · cites it 2× “29 C.F.R. § 785.23 (1987). A Department of Labor regulation opinion has offered the following explanation of this regulation: Section 785.”
Moody v. Royal Wolf Lodge (2018) alaska · cites it 4× “He points to the relevant federal regulation, 29 C.F.R. § 785.23 , which recognizes that "[a]n employee who resides on his employer's premises on a permanent basis or for extended periods of time is not considered as working all the time he is on the premises," because…”
Show all 75 citing cases →
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.