Advertisement

May 23, 2013

Eleventh Circuit rejects overreaching DOL regulation

A Department of Labor regulation (29 C.F.R. § 776.23(c)) purports to bring “within the scope” of the FLSA all employees engaged in construction work, including maintenance and repair work, that is “closely or intimately related” to a covered enterprise. In other words, “[i]f the construction project is subject to the [FLSA], all employees who participate in the integrated effort are covered….” The plaintiff in Josendis v. Wall to Wall Residence Repairs, Inc., claimed that this coverage was available to him, even if his construction employer was not covered under the FLSA, by virtue of remodeling work he did for his employer’s customer, a covered enterprise.

The Eleventh Circuit, rejecting this argument, refused to apply Chevron deference because it found that the FLSA’s text concerning enterprise coverage was clear and unambiguous – an employee must be employed “in an enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce” in order to be entitled to FLSA overtime under an enterprise coverage theory. The court concluded that this text can only be construed to cover employees actually employed by the covered enterprise.

©2013 Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved.

About the Author

Associate

Jay P. Lechner is a board certified labor and employment lawyer, specializing in the defense of discrimination, whistleblower, harassment, and wage and hour cases, as well as restrictive covenants, retaliation, related state tort and contract issues, and other types of employment litigation.

813-318-5700

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.