[Code of Federal Regulations]
[Title 29, Volume 3]
[Revised as of July 1, 2004]
From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access
[CITE: 29CFR783.21]

[Page 653]
 
                             TITLE 29--LABOR
 
         CHAPTER V--WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
 
PART 783_APPLICATION OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT TO EMPLOYEES EMPLOYED 
AS SEAMEN--Table of Contents
 
Sec. 783.21  Guiding principles for applying coverage and exemption 
provisions.

    It is clear that Congress intended the Fair Labor Standards Act to 
be broad in its scope (Helena Glendale Ferry Co. v. Walling, 132 F. 2d 
616). ``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; and see Walling v. Haden, 153 F. 2d 196). 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 spirits.'' 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; Helena Glendale 
Ferry Co. v. Walling, supra; Mitchell v. Stinson, 217 F. 2d 210; 
Flemming v. Hawkeye Pearl Button Co., 113 F. 2d 52; Walling v. Bay State 
Dredging & Contracting Co., 149 F. 2d 346, certiorari denied 326 U.S. 
760; Anderson v. Manhattan Lighterage Corp., 148 F. 2d 971, certiorari 
denied 326 U.S. 722; Sternberg Dredging Co. v. Walling, 158 F. 2d 678).