29 U.S.C. § 251

Congressional findings and declaration of policy

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 29 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) The Congress finds that the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended [29 U.S.C. 201 et seq.], has been interpreted judicially in disregard of long-established customs, practices, and contracts between employers and employees, thereby creating wholly unexpected liabilities, immense in amount and retroactive in operation, upon employers with the results that, if said Act as so interpreted or claims arising under such interpretations were permitted to stand, (1) the payment of such liabilities would bring about financial ruin of many employers and seriously impair the capital resources of many others, thereby resulting in the reduction of industrial operations, halting of expansion and development, curtailing employment, and the earning power of employees; (2) the credit of many employers would be seriously impaired; (3) there would be created both an extended and continuous uncertainty on the part of industry, both employer and employee, as to the financial condition of productive establishments and a gross inequality of competitive conditions between employers and between industries; (4) employees would receive windfall payments, including liquidated damages, of sums for activities performed by them without any expectation of reward beyond that included in their agreed rates of pay; (5) there would occur the promotion of increasing demands for payment to employees for engaging in activities no compensation for which had been contemplated by either the employer or employee at the time they were engaged in; (6) voluntary collective bargaining would be interfered with and industrial disputes between employees and employers and between employees and employees would be created; (7) the courts of the country would be burdened with excessive and needless litigation and champertous practices would be encouraged; (8) the Public Treasury would be deprived of large sums of revenues and public finances would be seriously deranged by claims against the Public Treasury for refunds of taxes already paid; (9) the cost to the Government of goods and services heretofore and hereafter purchased by its various departments and agencies would be unreasonably increased and the Public Treasury would be seriously affected by consequent increased cost of war contracts; and (10) serious and adverse effects upon the revenues of Federal, State, and local governments would occur.

The Congress further finds that all of the foregoing constitutes a substantial burden on commerce and a substantial obstruction to the free flow of goods in commerce.

The Congress, therefore, further finds and declares that it is in the national public interest and for the general welfare, essential to national defense, and necessary to aid, protect, and foster commerce, that this chapter be enacted.

The Congress further finds that the varying and extended periods of time for which, under the laws of the several States, potential retroactive liability may be imposed upon employers, have given and will give rise to great difficulties in the sound and orderly conduct of business and industry.

The Congress further finds and declares that all of the results which have arisen or may arise under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended, as aforesaid, may (except as to liability for liquidated damages) arise with respect to the Walsh-Healey and Bacon-Davis Acts 11 See References in Text note below. and that it is, therefore, in the national public interest and for the general welfare, essential to national defense, and necessary to aid, protect, and foster commerce, that this chapter shall apply to the Walsh-Healey Act and the Bacon-Davis Act.1

(b) It is declared to be the policy of the Congress in order to meet the existing emergency and to correct existing evils (1) to relieve and protect interstate commerce from practices which burden and obstruct it; (2) to protect the right of collective bargaining; and (3) to define and limit the jurisdiction of the courts.(May 14, 1947, ch. 52, § 1, 61 Stat. 84.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended, referred to in subsec. (a), is act June 25, 1938, ch. 676, 52 Stat. 1060, which is classified generally to chapter 8 (§ 201 et seq.) of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see section 201 of this title and Tables.

This chapter, referred to in subsec. (a), was in the original “this Act”, meaning act May 14, 1947, ch. 52, 61 Stat. 84, known as the Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947, which enacted this chapter and amended section 216 of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out below and Tables.

The Walsh-Healey and Bacon-Davis Acts, referred to in subsec. (a), are defined for purposes of this chapter in section 262 of this title.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesShort Title of 1996 Amendment

Pub. L. 104–188, [title II], § 2101, Aug. 20, 1996, 110 Stat. 1928, provided that: “This section and sections 2102 [amending section 254 of this title] and 2103 [enacting provisions set out as a note under section 254 of this title] may be cited as the ‘Employee Commuting Flexibility Act of 1996’.”

Short Title

Act May 14, 1947, ch. 52, § 15, 61 Stat. 90, provided that: “This Act [enacting this chapter and amending section 216 of this title] may be cited as the ‘Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947’.”

Separability

Act May 14, 1947, ch. 52, § 14, 61 Stat. 90, provided: “If any provision of this Act [see Short Title note above] or the application of such provision to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of this Act and the application of such provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.”

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 439 cases (61 in the last 5 years), 1947–2026 · leading case: Carlo Llorca v. Sheriff, Collier Cnty., Florida, 893 F.3d 1319 (11th Cir. 2018).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Carlo Llorca v. Sheriff, Collier Cnty., Florida, 893 F.3d 1319 (11th Cir. 2018). · cites it 7× “at 516–17 (quoting from the findings of Congress in 29 U.S.C. § 251 (a)). The Portal–to–Portal Act, as amended by the Employee Commuting Flexibility Act of 1996, provides: [N]o employer shall be subject to any liability or punishment under the Fair Labor Standards Act .”

Morillion v. Royal Packing Co., 995 P.2d 139 (Cal. 2000). · cites it 6× “), the Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947 (Portal-to-Portal Act) ( 29 U.S.C. § 251 et seq.), and related federal cases and regulations, which the Court of Appeal extensively discussed in reaching a different conclusion.”

Laffey v. Nw. Airlines, Inc., 567 F.2d 429 (D.C. Cir. 1976). · cites it 4× “29 U.S.C. § 251 (1970). . Anderson v. Mt.”

Amaya v. DGS Constr., 278 A.3d 1216 (Md. 2022). · cites it 5× “10 – WAGES – OVERTIME COMPENSATION – HOURS OF WORK – UNJUST ENRICHMENT – Court of Appeals held that Portal-to-Portal Act (“PPA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 251 to 262, has not been adopted or incorporated into Maryland law in either Maryland Wage and Hour Law (“MWHL”), Md.”

Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, 136 S. Ct. 1036 (2016). “29 U.S.C. §§ 251 (a)-(b); see Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc.”

United Food & Com. Workers Union, Local 1473 v. Hormel Foods Corp., 2016 WI 13 (Wis. 2016). · cites it 4× “at 517, 519 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting 29 U.S.C. §§ 251 (a)-(b)). ¶158 The "integral and indispensable" test is no cake walk for the party who seeks to establish its requisite elements; it imposes a tough standard.”

Franklin v. Kellogg Co., 619 F.3d 604 (6th Cir. 2010). · cites it 4× “" 29 U.S.C. § 251 . Much like the Portal-to-Portal Act, Congress enacted § 203(o) to "avoid [] another series of incidents which led to the portal-to-portal legislation.”

Troester v. Starbucks Corp., 421 P.3d 1114 (Cal. 2018). · cites it 2× “Most closely on point is the IWC's response to the federal Portal-to-Portal Act ( 29 U.S.C. § 251 et seq. ). This legislation was a 1947 amendment to the FLSA relieving "employers from paying minimum wages or overtime compensation to employees for the following activities: '(1)…”

Mei Xing Yu v. Hasaki Restaurant, Inc., 944 F.3d 395 (2d Cir. 2019). “See 29 U.S.C. § 251 (a). Those findings open with an express statement that “the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 .”

Tina Vance v. Amazon.com, Inc., 852 F.3d 601 (6th Cir. 2017). · cites it 2× “Because we conclude the Kentucky Supreme Court would apply Integrity Staffing to the state’s wage and hour law, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of plaintiffs’ KWHA claims.”

Robert B. Reich, Sec'y of Labor, United States Dep't of Labor v. New York City Transit Auth., a Corp., 45 F.3d 646 (2d Cir. 1995). · cites it 3× “(the “FLSA”), as amended by the Portal-to-Portal Act, 29 U.S.C. § 251 , et seq., for the entire time spent commuting to and from work accompanied by the dog entrusted to him.”

Edward Monroe v. FTS USA, LLC, 860 F.3d 389 (6th Cir. 2017). “590, 597 (1944), superseded by statute on other grounds, Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947, 29 U.S.C. §§ 251–262). To effectuate Congress’s remedial purpose, the FLSA authorizes collective actions “by any one or more employees for and on behalf of himself or themselves and other…”

Show all 439 citing cases →

— 29 U.S.C. § 251(a) — 3 cases

Battaglia v. Gen. Motors Corp., 169 F.2d 254 (2d Cir. 1948).

Balestrieri v. Menlo Park Fire Prot. Dist., 800 F.3d 1094 (9th Cir. 2015).

McComb v. Frank Scerbo & Sons, Inc., 80 F. Supp. 457 (S.D.N.Y. 1948).

— 29 U.S.C. § 251(b) — 1 case

Richard R. Satterwhite, Jr., for Himself & in Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly Situated v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., an Ohio Corp., 496 F.2d 448 (10th Cir. 1974).

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.