[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: 29CFR790.15]

[Page 725-727]
 
                             TITLE 29--LABOR
 
         CHAPTER V--WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
 
PART 790_GENERAL STATEMENT AS TO THE EFFECT OF THE PORTAL-TO-PORTAL ACT 
OF 1947 ON THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT OF 1938--Table of Contents
 
Sec. 790.15  ``Good faith.''

    (a) One of the most important requirements of sections 9 and 10 is 
proof by the employer that the act or omission complained of and his 
conformance with and reliance upon an administrative regulation, order, 
ruling, approval, interpretation, practice or enforcement policy, were 
in good faith. The legislative history of the Portal

[[Page 726]]

Act makes it clear that the employer's ``good faith'' is not to be 
determined merely from the actual state of his mind. Statements made in 
the House and Senate indicate that ``good faith'' also depends upon an 
objective test--whether the employer, in acting or omitting to act as he 
did, and in relying upon the regulation, order, ruling, approval, 
interpretation, administrative practice or enforcement policy, acted as 
a reasonably prudent man would have acted under the same or similar 
circumstances. \95\ ``Good faith'' requires that the employer have 
honesty of intention and no knowledge of circumstances which ought to 
put him upon inquiry. \96\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \95\ Colloquy between Representatives Reeves and Devitt, 93 Cong. 
Rec. 1593; colloquy between Senators Ferguson and Donnell, 93 Cong. Rec. 
4451-4452.
    \96\ See statement of Senator McGrath, 93 Cong. Rec. 2254-2255; 
statement of Representative Keating, 93 Cong. Rec. 4391; statement of 
Representative Walter, 93 Cong. Rec. 4389.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (b) Some situations illustrating the application of the principles 
stated in paragraph (a) of this section may be mentioned. Assume that a 
ruling from the Administrator, stating positively that the Fair Labor 
Standards Act does not apply to certain employees, is received by an 
employer in response to a request which fully described the duties of 
the employees and the circumstances surrounding their employment. It is 
clear that the employer's employment of such employees in such duties 
and under such circumstances in reliance on the Administrator's ruling, 
without compensating them in accordance with the Act, would be in good 
faith so long as the ruling remained unrevoked and the employer had no 
notice of any facts or circumstances which would lead a reasonably 
prudent man to make further inquiry as to whether the employees came 
within the Act's provisions. Assume, however, that the Administrator's 
ruling was expressly based on certain court decisions holding that 
employees so engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for 
commerce, and that the employer subsequently learned from his attorney 
that a higher court had reversed these decisions or had cast doubt on 
their correctness by holding employees similarly situated to be engaged 
in an occupation necessary to the production of goods for interstate 
commerce. Assume further that the employer, after learning of this, made 
no further inquiry but continued to pay the employees without regard to 
the requirements of the Act in reliance on the Administrator's earlier 
ruling. In such a situation, if the employees later brought an action 
against the employer, the court might determine that they were entitled 
to the benefits of the Act and might decide that the employer, after 
learning of the decision of the higher court, knew facts which would put 
a reasonably prudent man upon inquiry and therefore had not provided his 
good faith in relying upon the Administrator's ruling after receiving 
this advice.
    (c) In order to illustrate further the test of ``good faith,'' 
suppose that the X Federal Agency published a general bulletin regarding 
manufacturing, which contained the erroneous statement that all foremen 
are exempt under the Fair Labor Standards Act as employed in a ``bona 
fide executive * * * capacity.'' Suppose also that an employer knowing 
that the Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division is charged with the 
duties of administering the Fair Labor Standards Act and of defining the 
phrase ``bona fide executive * * * capacity'' in that Act, nevertheless 
relied upon the above bulletin without inquiring further and, 
inconformity with this advice, failed to compensate his nonexempt 
foremen in accordance with the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor 
Standards Act for work subject to that Act, performed before May 14, 
1947. If the employer had inquired of the Administrator or had consulted 
the Code of Federal Regulations, he would have found that his foremen 
were not exempt. In a subsequent action brought by employees under 
section 16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the court may decide that 
the employer knew facts which ought to have put him as a reasonable man 
upon further inquiry, and, consequently, that he did not rely `TT`Tin 
good faithT'TT' within the meaning of section 9,

[[Page 727]]

upon the bulletin published by the X Agency. \97\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \97\ See statement of Representative Gwynne, 93 Cong. Rec. 1563, and 
colloquy between Senators Connally and Donnell, 93 Cong. Rec. 4453.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (d) Insofar as the period prior to May 14, 1947, is concerned, the 
employer may have received an interpretation from an agency which 
conflicted with an interpretation of the Administrator of the Wage and 
Hour Division of which he was also aware. If the employer chose to reply 
upon the interpretation of the other agency, which interpretation worked 
to his advantage, considerable weight may well be given to the fact that 
the employer ignored the interpretation of the agency charged with the 
administration of the Fair Labor Standards Act and chose instead to rely 
upon the interpretation of an outside agency. \98\ Under these 
circumstances ``the question could properly be considered as to whether 
it was a good faith reliance or whether the employer was simply choosing 
a course which was most favorable to him.'' \99\ This problem will not 
arise in regard to any acts or omissions by the employer occurring on or 
after May 14, 1947, because section 10 provides that the employer, 
insofar as the Fair Labor Standards Act is concerned, may rely only upon 
regulations, orders, rulings, approvals, interpretations, administrative 
practices and enforcement policies of the Administrator of the Wage and 
Hour Division. \100\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \98\ This view was expressed several times during the debates. See 
statements of Representative Keating, 93 Cong. Rec. 1512 and 4391; 
colloquy between Representatives Keating and Devitt, 93 Cong. Rec. 1515; 
statement of Representative Walter, 93 Cong. Rep. 4389; statement of 
Representative MacKinnon, 93 Cong. Rec. 4391; statement of 
Representative Gwynne, 93 Cong. Rec. 1563; statement of Senator Cooper, 
93 Cong. Rec. 4451; colloquy between Senators Connally and Donnell, 93 
Cong. Rec. 4452-4453.
    \99\ Statement of Senator Cooper, 93 Cong. Rec. 4451. Representative 
Walter, a member of the Conference Committee, made the following 
explanatory statement to the House of Representatives (93 Cong. Rec. 
4390): ``The defense of good faith is intended to apply only where an 
employer innocently and to his detriment, followed the law as it was 
laid down to him by Government agencies, without notice that such 
interpretations were claimed to be erroneous or invalid. It is not 
intended that this defense shall apply where an employer had knowledge 
of conflicting rules and chose to act in accordance with the one most 
favorable to him.'' Representative Gwynne made a similar statement (93 
Cong. Rec. 1563).
    \100\ Statement of Senator Wiley explaining Conference agreement to 
the Senate, 93 Cong. Rec. 4270; statement of Representative Walter, 93 
Cong. Rec. 4389.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------