29 C.F.R. § 825.107

Successor in interest coverage

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

(a) For purposes of FMLA, in determining whether an employer is covered because it is a “successor in interest” to a covered employer, the factors used under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Vietnam Era Veterans' Adjustment Act will be considered. However, unlike Title VII, whether the successor has notice of the employee's claim is not a consideration. Notice may be relevant, however, in determining successor liability for violations of the predecessor. The factors to be considered include:

(1) Substantial continuity of the same business operations;

(2) Use of the same plant;

(3) Continuity of the work force;

(4) Similarity of jobs and working conditions;

(5) Similarity of supervisory personnel;

(6) Similarity in machinery, equipment, and production methods;

(7) Similarity of products or services; and

(8) The ability of the predecessor to provide relief.

(b) A determination of whether or not a successor in interest exists is not determined by the application of any single criterion, but rather the entire circumstances are to be viewed in their totality.

(c) When an employer is a successor in interest, employees' entitlements are the same as if the employment by the predecessor and successor were continuous employment by a single employer. For example, the successor, whether or not it meets FMLA coverage criteria, must grant leave for eligible employees who had provided appropriate notice to the predecessor, or continue leave begun while employed by the predecessor, including maintenance of group health benefits during the leave and job restoration at the conclusion of the leave. A successor which meets FMLA's coverage criteria must count periods of employment and hours of service with the predecessor for purposes of determining employee eligibility for FMLA leave.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 31 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1997–2025 · leading case: Ronald Cobb v. Contract Transp., Inc., 452 F.3d 543 (6th Cir. 2006).
Ronald Cobb v. Contract Transp., Inc., 452 F.3d 543 (6th Cir. 2006). · cites it 7× “§ 2611 (4)(A)(ii)(II), and its implementing regulations adopt the successor in interest test from Title VII case law, 29 C.F.R. § 825.107 . The successor liability test set forth in Title VII case law originates in federal labor law.”
Grace v. USCAR, 521 F.3d 655 (6th Cir. 2008). · cites it 3× “29 C.F.R. § 825.107 ; Cobb v. Contract Transp.”
Rhoads v. Fed. Deposit Ins., 956 F. Supp. 1239 (D. Maryland 1997). · cites it 4× “” 29 C.F.R. § 825.107 . 13 “When an employer is a ‘successor in interest,’ employees’ entitlements are the same as if the employment by the predecessor and successor were continuous employment by a single employer.”
Sullivan v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., 623 F.3d 770 (9th Cir. 2010). · cites it 2× “2008), and apply the regulations promulgated by the United States Department of Labor (“DOL”) at 29 C.F.R. § 825.107 . After doing so, we conclude that Plaintiff Christina Sullivan is not entitled to FMLA benefits because her new employer, Defendant Dollar Tree Stores, Inc.”
Renee Finnerty v. RadioShack Corp., 390 F. App'x 520 (6th Cir. 2010). · cites it 7× “The factors to be considered include: (1) Substantial continuity of the same business operations; (2) Use of the same plant; (3) Continuity of the work force; (4) Similarity of jobs and working conditions; (5) Similarity of supervisory personnel; (6) Similarity in machinery,…”
Finnerty v. Wireless Retail, Inc., 624 F. Supp. 2d 642 (E.D. Mich. 2009). · cites it 5× “Moreover, courts should consider the eight factors listed in 29 C.F.R. § 825.107 when resolving a successor liability issue: (1) Substantial continuity of the same business operations; (2) Use of the same plant; (3) Continuity of the work force; (4) Similarity of jobs and…”
Vanderhoof v. Life Extension Inst., 988 F. Supp. 507 (D.N.J. 1997). · cites it 4× “29 C.F.R. § 825.107 (c). The DOL regulations also set forth factors that should be considered when determining whether an employer is a “successor” as contemplated by the FMLA: (1) Substantial continuity of the same business operations; (2) Use of the same plant; (3) Continuity…”
Carlson v. Rent-A-Ctr., Inc., 237 F. Supp. 2d 114 (D. Me. 2003). · cites it 4× “” 29 C.F.R. § 825.107 (c). Rent-A-Center would be required to count Carlson’s Wilson Enterprises periods of employment and hours worked for purposes of determining Carlson’s FMLA leave eligibility.”
Slaughter v. Am. Bldg. Maint. Co., 64 F. Supp. 2d 319 (S.D.N.Y. 1999). · cites it 2× “29 C.F.R. § 825.107 (c). In order to determine whether an employer constitutes a "successor in interest,” the regulations provide specific factors for evaluation in their totality: "(1) Substantial continuity of the same business operations; (2) Use of the same plant; (3)…”
Moore v. GPS Hosp. Partners IV, LLC, 383 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (U.S. Cir. Ct. 2019). · cites it 2× “29 C.F.R. § 825.107 (a). The first seven factors all plainly support successor status: the defendant purchased almost 200 Burger King restaurants and retained all personnel and equipment to provide the same products in the same manner and by the same means at the same locations.”
Jolliffe v. Mitchell, 971 F. Supp. 1039 (W.D. Va. 1997). · cites it 2× “” 29 C.F.R. § 825.107 (West 1997). The regulations further explain: When an employer is a ‘successor in interest,’ employees entitlements are the same as if the employment by the predecessor and the successor were continuous employment by a single employer.”
Moore v. Smith, 360 F. Supp. 3d 388 (E.D. La. 2018). · cites it 4× “29 C.F.R. § 825.107 . As 29 C.F.R. § 825.”
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.