U.S. Code » Title 29 » Chapter CHAPTER 8— FAIR LABOR STANDARDS

29 U.S.C. § 202

Congressional finding and declaration of policy

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 29 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) The Congress finds that the existence, in industries engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce, of labor conditions detrimental to the maintenance of the minimum standard of living necessary for health, efficiency, and general well-being of workers (1) causes commerce and the channels and instrumentalities of commerce to be used to spread and perpetuate such labor conditions among the workers of the several States; (2) burdens commerce and the free flow of goods in commerce; (3) constitutes an unfair method of competition in commerce; (4) leads to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of goods in commerce; and (5) interferes with the orderly and fair marketing of goods in commerce. That Congress further finds that the employment of persons in domestic service in households affects commerce.(b) It is declared to be the policy of this chapter, through the exercise by Congress of its power to regulate commerce among the several States and with foreign nations, to correct and as rapidly as practicable to eliminate the conditions above referred to in such industries without substantially curtailing employment or earning power.(June 25, 1938, ch. 676, § 2, 52 Stat. 1060; Oct. 26, 1949, ch. 736, § 2, 63 Stat. 910; Pub. L. 93–259, § 7(a), Apr. 8, 1974, 88 Stat. 62.)Editorial NotesAmendments

1974—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 93–259 inserted finding of Congress that employment of persons in domestic service in households affects commerce.

1949—Subsec. (b). Act Oct. 26, 1949, inserted reference to regulation of commerce with foreign nations.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1974 Amendment

Pub. L. 93–259, § 29(a), Apr. 8, 1974, 88 Stat. 76, provided that: “Except as otherwise specifically provided, the amendments made by this Act [see Short Title of 1974 Amendment note set out under section 201 of this title] shall take effect on May 1, 1974.”

Effective Date of 1949 Amendment

Act Oct. 26, 1949, ch. 736, § 16(a), 63 Stat. 919, provided that: “The amendments made by this Act [enacting section 216b of this title, amending this section and sections 203 to 208, 211 to 216, and 217 of this title, and repealing section 216a of this title] shall take effect upon the expiration of ninety days from the date of its enactment [Oct. 26, 1947]; except that the amendment made by section 4 [amending section 204 of this title] shall take effect on the date of its enactment [Oct. 26, 1949].”

Rules, Regulations, and Orders With Regard to Fair Labor Standards Amendments of 1974

Pub. L. 93–259, § 29(b), Apr. 8, 1974, 88 Stat. 76, provided that: “Notwithstanding subsection (a) [set out as an Effective Date of 1974 Amendment note above], on and after the date of the enactment of this Act [Apr. 8, 1974] the Secretary of Labor is authorized to prescribe necessary rules, regulations, and orders with regard to the amendments made by this Act [see Short Title of 1974 Amendment note set out under section 201 of this title].”

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 782 cases (250 in the last 5 years), 1940–2026 · leading case: The Matter of Walter E. Carver v. State of New York, 44 N.E.3d 154 (NY 2015).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
The Matter of Walter E. Carver v. State of New York, 44 N.E.3d 154 (NY 2015). · cites it 6× “The FLSA was also enacted to prevent unfair competition through the use of underpaid labor (see 29 USC § 202 [a] [3]). The FLSA provides: "Every employer shall pay to each of his employees who in any workweek is engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce, or…”
Barrentine v. Arkansas-Best Freight Sys., Inc., 450 U.S. 728 (1981). · cites it 4× “" 29 U. S. C. § 202 (a). [14] In contrast to the Labor Management Relations Act, which was designed to minimize industrial strife and to improve working conditions by encouraging employees to promote their interests collectively, the FLSA was designed to give specific minimum…”
Edward Monroe v. FTS USA, LLC, 860 F.3d 389 (6th Cir. 2017). · cites it 2× “2015); 29 U.S.C. § 202 (a). The provisions of the statute are “remedial and humanitarian in purpose,” and “must not be interpreted or applied in a narrow, grudging manner.”
Christopher v. Smithkline Beecham Corp., 132 S. Ct. 2156 (2012). · cites it 2× “728, 739 (1981); see also 29 U. S. C. §202 (a). Among other requirements, the 2 CHRISTOPHER v.”
Castellanos-Contreras v. Decatur Hotels, LLC, 622 F.3d 393 (5th Cir. 2010). · cites it 4× “The FLSA and its regulations represent a self-sufficient set of rules meant to prevent "labor conditions detrimental to the maintenance of the minimum standard of living necessary for health, efficiency, and general well-being of workers.”
Shahriar v. Smith & Wollensky Restaurant Grp., Inc., 659 F.3d 234 (2d Cir. 2011). · cites it 2× “The FLSA was designed to protect workers and ensure that they are not subjected to working conditions “detrimental to the maintenance of the minimum standard of living necessary for health, efficiency, and general well-being.”
Patricia Thompson v. Real Est. Mortg. Network, 748 F.3d 142 (3rd Cir. 2014). · cites it 2× “29 U.S.C. § 202 . That fundamental purpose is as fully deserving of protection as the labor peace, anti-discrimination, and worker security policies underlying the NLRA, Title VII, 42 U.”
Mei Xing Yu v. Hasaki Restaurant, Inc., 944 F.3d 395 (2d Cir. 2019). “22 at 706 ; see also 29 U.S.C. § 202 . 23 The Court in Brooklyn Savings Bank explained that the FLSA 24 achieves this goal in two ways: at the front end, by setting mandatory, 25 federal “standards of minimum wages and maximum hours,” 26 Brooklyn Savs.”
Aldridge v. MS Dept of Corr., 990 F.3d 868 (5th Cir. 2021). · cites it 2× “State law or municipal ordinance establishing a minimum wage higher than the minimum wage established under this chapter or a maximum workweek 1 Parker Drilling Mgmt.”
Kenney v. Helix TCS, 939 F.3d 1106 (10th Cir. 2019). · cites it 2× “at 20 (citing 29 U.S.C. § 202 ), from the purpose of the later-enacted CSA, which it describes as “eliminat[ing] commercial transactions of marijuana in the interstate market in their entirety.”
Havey v. Homebound Mortg., Inc., 547 F.3d 158 (2d Cir. 2008). · cites it 2× “§ 383, 3 and that defendants, Homebound and its officers, failed to pay her.”
Parrish v. Premier Directional Drilling, L.P., 917 F.3d 369 (5th Cir. 2019). “29 U.S.C. § 202 (a). Subject to exceptions, the statute defines "employee" as "any individual employed by an employer".”
Show all 782 citing cases →
— 29 U.S.C. § 202(a) — 5 cases
John T. Dunlop, Sec'y of Labor v. Carriage Carpet Co., 548 F.2d 139 (6th Cir. 1977).
Brandi McKay v. Miami-Dade Cnty., 36 F.4th 1128 (11th Cir. 2022).
Allen v. Dolgencorp, Inc., 513 F. Supp. 2d 1215 (N.D. Ala. 2007).
Walsh v. Wicare Home Care Agency, LLC (M.D. Penn. 2024).
Schiller-Egles v. The PromptCare Companies, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. 2025).
— 29 U.S.C. § 202(b) — 2 cases
State of Maryland v. Wirtz, 269 F. Supp. 826 (D. Maryland 1967).
Owens v. Greenville News-Piedmont, 43 F. Supp. 785 (W.D.S.C. 1942).
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.