[Code of Federal Regulations]
[Title 29, Volume 3]
[Revised as of July 1, 2005]
From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access
[CITE: 29CFR779.101]

[Page 425]
 
                             TITLE 29--LABOR
 
         CHAPTER V--WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
 
PART 779_THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT AS APPLIED TO RETAILERS OF GOODS 
OR SERVICES--Table of Contents
 
 Subpart B_Employment to Which the Act May Apply: Basic Principles and 
                           Individual Coverage
 
Sec. 779.101  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. ``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; 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.) ``The 
details with which the exemptions in this Act have been made preclude 
their enlargement by implication.'' (Addison v. Holly Hill, 322 U.S. 60; 
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 restricted or narrow 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. 
Gonzalez, 127 F. 2d 934; Bowie v. Gonzalez, 117 F. 2d 11; Mitchell v. 
Stinson, 217 F. 2d 210; Fleming v. Hawkeye Pearl Button Co., 113 F. 2d 
52.)