Opinion ID: 2971315
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: one establishment.

Text: Our analysis thus far has considered Double JJ to be one Marshall v. New Hampshire Jockey Club, Inc., 562 F.2d establishment. As we noted above, Double JJ does not 1323, 1330 (1st Cir. 1977). Similarly the language defining contest that it has failed to pay its employees the prevailing establishment in the regulations accompanying the Act, minimum wage and required overtime pay. Nor does Double albeit not the regulations defining the recreational exemption, JJ contest that it has failed to keep adequate records as set out that two or more physically separated portions of a required by the Act. Instead, it argues that it was exempt business although located on the same premises and even from the Act's requirements. Having rejected the idea that under the same roof in some circumstances may constitute Double JJ is wholly exempt from the Act's provisions, we are more than one establishment for purposes of exemptions. 29 nonetheless uncomfortable remanding with instructions to C.F.R. § 779.305. Under this authority, Double JJ's facilities enter judgment for Secretary Chao. While we are certain that related to horseback riding, for example, might qualify as a parts of Double JJ are bound by the Act's pay and records separate recreational establishment. Then again, it might not. requirements (for example, the bars, restaurants, dining We simply cannot tell from this record. facilities, conference center, lodging facilities, and gas station), we cannot, on this record, declare that Double JJ is On remand, we believe the test the district court should use one establishment and thus wholly subject to the Act. The in determining which parts of Double JJ qualifies for the Secretary concedes that Double JJ's golf course qualifies as a exemption is set out in 29 C.F.R. § 779.305. See also 1999 separate establishment that is exempt from the Act, and so too WL 1788159 (the opinion of the Wage and Hour may other recreational services offered by Double JJ. Administrator incorporating the regulation's test). The regulation explains that for a recreational service, remotely The First Circuit, in a case involving the definition of connected to a non-qualifying business, to qualify as a establishment as used in the amusement and recreational separate establishment it must be: (a) physically separate from establishment exemption, held that: the other activities; (b) functionally operated as a separate unit having separate records and separate bookkeeping; and [s]eparate stores under common ownership may each be (c) have dedicated employees that are not shared between establishments while other aspects of the total operations units. 29 C.F.R. § 779.305. If any of Double JJ's recreational of the same company may be found to be outside the services meet this test, they should be exempt from the Act's pertinent establishment. See Mitchell v. Bekins Van & requirements. Storage Co., 352 U.S. 1027 (1957), summarily rev'g 231 Accordingly, we REVERSE the judgment of the district court and remand for proceedings consistent with this 1 opinion. W ere Do uble JJ situated in a National Park or National Forest our analysis would be different. See 29 U.S.C. § 21 3(a)(3); see also Chessin v. Keystone Resort Mgmt, Inc., 184 F.3d 11 88 (10th Cir. 1999).