29 C.F.R. § 785.5
General requirements of sections 6 and 7 of the Fair Labor Standards Act
Section 6 requires the payment of a minimum wage by an employer to his employees who are subject to the Act. Section 7 prohibits their employment for more than a specified number of hours per week without proper overtime compensation.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1965–2021 · leading case: Trezvant v. Fid. Emp. Servs. Corp., 434 F. Supp. 2d 40 (D. Mass. 2006).
Trezvant v. Fid. Emp. Servs. Corp., 434 F. Supp. 2d 40 (D. Mass. 2006). “29 C.F.R. § 785.5 ; Principles for Determination of Hours Worked; “785.”
Tomney v. Int'l Ctr. for the Disabled & Local 815, 357 F. Supp. 2d 721 (S.D.N.Y. 2005). “§§ 201-13 ; see also 29 C.F.R. § 785.5 . To establish a FLSA claim, a plaintiff must prove that: (i) she was an employee who was eligible for overtime, and (ii) that she actually worked overtime hours.”
Elliott Gelber v. AKAL Sec., Inc., 14 F.4th 1279 (11th Cir. 2021). “§§ 206–07; 29 C.F.R § 785.5, it does not define “work.”
Thomas v. Cnty. of Fairfax, Va., 758 F. Supp. 353 (E.D. Va. 1991). “This argument, to begin with, is inconsistent with applicable regulations and judicial construction of the statutory term “hours worked” within the meaning of the Act.”
Gonzalez v. Rite Aid of New York, Inc., 199 F. Supp. 2d 122 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). “§§ 201-13 ; see also 29 C.F.R. § 785.5 . The statute contains exceptions for certain types of employees, but Rite Aid does not contest whether Gonzalez would be covered under the statute.”
Seltzer v. Dresdner Kleinwort Wasserstein, Inc., 356 F. Supp. 2d 288 (S.D.N.Y. 2005). “§§ 201-13 ; see also 29 C.F.R. § 785.5 . Certain employees, however, are exempt: “Minimum wage and maximum hour requirements .”
Guillermo Deyá v. Tribunal Superior de Puerto Rico, 91 P.R. Dec. 669 (1965). “Véase, 29 C.F.R. § 785.5 et seq. La única prueba que se ofreció por el particular no sostiene que la compañía derive un beneficio adicional por la prestación de este servicio de emergencia, ya que la cantidad mensual estipulada en los contratos ha sido determinada considerando…”
Elliott Gelber v. AKAL Sec., Inc. (11th Cir. 2021). “§§ 206–07; 29 C.F.R § 785.5, it does not define “work.”
Deyá v. Otis Elevator Co., 91 P.R. 649 (1965). “See 29 C.F.R. § 785.5 et seq. The only evidence offered on the matter - does not sustain that the company derived an additional benefit from the emergency service given, since the monthly amount stipulated in the contracts has been determined on the basis of the average number…”
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.