29 CFR § 794.102

29 CFR · Labor

§ 794.102 — Guides for construing exemptions.

29 CFR § 794.102

TitleTitle 29: Labor PartPart 794: Partial Overtime Exemption for Employees of Wholesale or Bulk Petroleum Distributors Under Section 7(b)(3) of the Fair Labor Standards Act

SourceeCFR (current through Apr 3, 2026)

This text of 29 C.F.R. § 794.102 (Guides for construing exemptions.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

29 C.F.R. § 794.102 (2026).

Text

§ 794.102 Guides for construing exemptions.
It is judicially settled that “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 employment specified in the statute. Conditions specified in the language of the Act are “explicit prerequisities to exemption.” Accordingly, it is the well-established rule that exemptions from the Act “are to be narrowly construed against the employer seeking to assert them” and their applications is limited to those who come “plainly and unmistakably within their terms and spirit.” An employer who claims such an exemption has the burden of showing that it applies. See Wirtz v. Lunsford, 404 F. 2d 693 (C.A. 6); Addison v. Holly Hill, 3

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

§ 794.102 Guides for construing exemptions.

It is judicially settled that “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 employment specified in the statute. Conditions specified in the language of the Act are “explicit prerequisities to exemption.” Accordingly, it is the well-established rule that exemptions from the Act “are to be narrowly construed against the employer seeking to assert them” and their applications is limited to those who come “plainly and unmistakably within their terms and spirit.” An employer who claims such an exemption has the burden of showing that it applies. See Wirtz v. Lunsford, 404 F. 2d 693 (C.A. 6); Addison v. Holly Hill, 322 U.S. 607; Maneja v. Waialua, 349 U.S. 254; Phillips v. Walling, 334 U.S. 490; Arnold v. Kanowsky, 361 U.S. 388; Mitchell v. Kentucky Finance Co., 359 U.S. 290; Walling v. General Industries Co., 330 U.S. 545.