Tap any paragraph to write a margin note. Your notes collect in the Desk below the text and file under cases with @. The side-by-side margin rail opens on a larger screen.

Code · CFR · Title 29 — Labor · Part 784 · § 784.21

§ 784.21. Guiding principles for applying coverage and exemption provisions.

285 words·~1 min read·/us/cfr/t29/s§ 784.21·

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

It is clear that Congress intended the Fair Labor Standards Act to be broad in its scope. "Breadth of coverage is vital to its mission" (Powell v. U.S. Cartridge Co., 339 U.S. 497). An employer who claims an exemption under the Act has the burden of showing that it applies (Walling v. General Industries Co., 330 U.S. 545; Mitchell v. Kentucky Finance Co., 359 U.S. 290: Tobin v. Blue Channel Corp., 198 F. 2d 245, approved in Mitchell v. Myrtle Grove Packing Co., 350 U.S. 891; Fleming v.
Hawkeye Pearl Button Co., 113 F. 2d 52). Conditions specified in the language of the Act are "explicit prerequisites to exemption" (Arnold v. Kanowsky, 361 U.S. 388). In their application, the purpose of the exemption as shown in its legislative history as well as its language should be given effect. However, "the details with which the exemptions in this Act have been made preclude their enlargement by implication" and "no matter how broad the exemption, it is meant to apply only to" the specified activities (Addison v.
Holly Hill, 322 U.S. 607; Maneja v. Waialua, 349 U.S. 254). Exemptions provided in the Act "are to be narrowly construed against the employer seeking to assert them" and their application limited to those who come "plainly and unmistakably within their terms and spirit." This construction of the exemptions is necessary to carry out the broad objectives for which the Act was passed (Phillips v. Walling, 324 U.S. 490; Mitchell v. Kentucky Finance Co., supra; Arnold v. Kanowsky, supra;
Calaf v. Gonzales, 127 F. 2d 934; Bowie v. Gonzales, 117 F. 2d 11; Mitchell v. Stinson, 217 F. 2d 210; Fleming v. Hawkeye Pearl Button Co., 113 F. 2d 52).
Connections13 off-index
13 references not yet in our index
  • 339 U.S. 497
  • 330 U.S. 545
  • 359 U.S. 290
  • 198 F.2d 245
  • 350 U.S. 891
  • 113 F.2d 52
  • 361 U.S. 388
  • 322 U.S. 607
  • 349 U.S. 254
  • 324 U.S. 490
  • 127 F.2d 934
  • 117 F.2d 11
  • 217 F.2d 210
Citation graph
cites case law
§ 784.21
Guiding principles for applying coverage and exemption provisions.
Cites 13 · showing 5Cited by 0 across 0 sources
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

"If you don't know your rights, you don't have any."

Marginalia · a citizen's law index
A research desk, not legal advice. Always read the cited source before relying on a summary.
Questions or an issue? support@self-law.org
disclaimerMarginalia is a research index, not a law firm. Nothing on this site is legal, tax, or financial advice and no attorney–client relationship is formed by using it. Statutes, regulations, and case law change; summaries, search results, AI output, and member posts may be incomplete, out of date, or wrong. Any interpretation drawn from material on this site should be validated by a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction before you act on it.