[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: 29CFR783.21]

[Page 608-609]
 
                             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 FinanceCo., 359 U.S. 
290; Tobin v. Blue Channel Corp. 198 F. 2d

[[Page 609]]

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.'' Thisconstruction 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).