Home
Menu
Call attorney Graham Syfert at 904-383-7448
Personal Injury Lawyer
Florida Statute 825.104 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research
F.S. 825.104 Case Law from Google Scholar
Statute is currently reporting as:
Link to State of Florida Official Statute Google Search for Amendments to 825.104

The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title XLVI
CRIMES
Chapter 825
ABUSE, NEGLECT, AND EXPLOITATION OF ELDERLY PERSONS AND DISABLED ADULTS
View Entire Chapter
F.S. 825.104
825.104 Knowledge of victim’s age.It does not constitute a defense to a prosecution for any violation of this chapter that the accused did not know the age of the victim.
History.s. 5, ch. 95-158.

F.S. 825.104 on Google Scholar

F.S. 825.104 on Casetext

Amendments to 825.104


Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 825.104
Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 825.104.



Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

M. RIDEAU, M. D. v. LAFAYETTE HEALTH VENTURES, INC., 381 F. Supp. 3d 709 (W.D. La. 2019)

. . . . § 825.104(a). . . .

ROWLEY, v. BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY,, 372 F. Supp. 3d 1322 (D. Utah 2019)

. . . . § 825.104(d). . . .

MOORE, v. SMITH, 360 F. Supp. 3d 388 (E.D. La. 2018)

. . . . § 825.104(a). . . .

M. MILES, v. UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. KANSAS CITY, KANSAS, 347 F. Supp. 3d 626 (D. Kan. 2018)

. . . . § 825.104(d) provides additional context: An employer includes any person who acts directly or indirectly . . .

R. MACINTYRE, E. v. W. MOORE,, 335 F. Supp. 3d 402 (W.D.N.Y. 2018)

. . . . § 825.104(d) ); see Darby , 287 F.3d at 681 ("The implementing regulations of the FMLA recognize the . . .

T. CORDOVA, v. NEW MEXICO,, 283 F. Supp. 3d 1028 (D.N.M. 2017)

. . . . § 825.104(d). . . . The implementing regulations state that this section mirrors the FLSA. 29 C.F.R. § 825.104(d). . . .

EDELMAN, v. SOURCE HEALTHCARE ANALYTICS, LLC,, 265 F. Supp. 3d 534 (E.D. Pa. 2017)

. . . . § 825.104(d); see also Haybarger v. Lawrence Cty. . . .

ANDREATTA, v. ELDORADO RESORTS CORPORATION,, 214 F. Supp. 3d 943 (D. Nev. 2016)

. . . . § 825.104(d) (“As under the FLSA, individuals such as corporate officers ‘acting in the interest of . . .

GELIN, v. U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,, 837 F.3d 1236 (11th Cir. 2016)

. . . . § 825.104. . . . . § 825.104. . . .

KIEFFER, v. CPR RESTORATION CLEANING SERVICE, LLC,, 200 F. Supp. 3d 520 (E.D. Pa. 2016)

. . . . § 825.104(a). . . . See 29 C.F.R. § 825.104(c)(1), The difference between the “joint employer” and the “integrated employer . . . Compare 29 C.F.R. § 825.106 with § 825.104(c)(2). . . . single criterion, “but rather the entire relationship is to be reviewed in its totality.” 29 C.F.R. § 825.104 . . . single criterion, but rather the entire relationship is to be reviewed in its totality.” 29 C.F.R. § 825.104 . . .

SALEMI, v. COLORADO PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION, 176 F. Supp. 3d 1132 (D. Colo. 2016)

. . . . § 825.104(d); Saavedra, 748 F.Supp.2d at 1283 (noting that “individuals such as corporate officers . . .

GRAZIADIO, v. CULINARY INSTITUTE OF AMERICA,, 817 F.3d 415 (2d Cir. 2016)

. . . . § 825.104(d). . . .

BRIDGE, v. NEW HOLLAND LOGANSPORT, INC., 815 F.3d 356 (7th Cir. 2016)

. . . . § 825.104(c)(2). . . .

E. WEST, v. J. O. STEVENSON, INC. SAG LLC LLC, O., 164 F. Supp. 3d 751 (E.D.N.C. 2016)

. . . .; see also 29 C.F.R § 825.104(c)(2). . . . control of labor relations; and 4) the degree of common ownership or financial control. 29 C.F.R. § 825.104 . . . Although executives typically may be liable under the FMLA, see 29 U.S.C. § 2611(d); 29 C.F.R. § 825.104 . . .

COWMAN, v. NORTHLAND HEARING CENTERS, INC. Dr., 628 F. App'x 669 (11th Cir. 2015)

. . . . § 825.104(c). . . .

NOIA, v. ORTHOPEDIC ASSOCIATES OF LONG ISLAND,, 93 F. Supp. 3d 13 (E.D.N.Y. 2015)

. . . . § 825.104(d); see Smith v. Westchester Cnty., 769 F.Supp.2d 448, 476 (S.D.N.Y.2011); Johnson v. . . .

DENNARD, v. TOWSON UNIVERSITY,, 62 F. Supp. 3d 446 (D. Md. 2014)

. . . . § 825.104(a)— promulgated by the U.S. . . .

CUFF, v. TRANS STATES HOLDINGS, INC., 768 F.3d 605 (7th Cir. 2014)

. . . . § 825.104(c). . . .

PORTER, v. FIVE STAR QUALITY CARE- MI, LLC LLC,, 26 F. Supp. 3d 694 (E.D. Mich. 2014)

. . . . § 825.104(a) (likewise providing that “[e]mployers covered by the FMLA ... include ... any successor . . . employer to any of the employees of such employer.” 29 U.S.C. § 2611(4)(A)(ii)(I); see also 29 C.F.R. § 825.104 . . .

DEMYANOVICH, v. CADON PLATING COATINGS, L. L. C., 747 F.3d 419 (6th Cir. 2014)

. . . . § 825.104(c)(2). . . .

HOUSEL, v. ROCHESTER INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY A., 6 F. Supp. 3d 294 (W.D.N.Y. 2014)

. . . . § 825.104(d). . . .

WONASUE, v. UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND ALUMNI ASSOCIATION,, 984 F. Supp. 2d 480 (D. Md. 2013)

. . . . § 825.104(a). . . . integrated employer will be counted in determining employer coverage and employee eligibility.” 29 C.F.R. § 825.104 . . . See 29 C.F.R. § 825.104(c)(2); Tasciyan, 2012 WL 4811290, at *7. Notably, Ms. . . . See 29 C.F.R. § 825.104(c)(2); Tasciyan, 2012 WL 4811290, at *7. . . .

ARRIGO, v. LINK STOP, INC. E. LLC, s LLC d b a LLC,, 975 F. Supp. 2d 976 (W.D. Wis. 2013)

. . . . § 825.104(c) or a “joint employer” under 29 C.F.R. § 825.106 so that their number of employees could . . .

ARANGO, v. WORK WELL, INC., 930 F. Supp. 2d 940 (N.D. Ill. 2013)

. . . . §§ 825.104(c), 825.106(b)(2); see Baer v. . . .

DALTON, v. MANOR CARE OF WEST DES MOINES IA, LLC LLC HCR LLC, 986 F. Supp. 2d 1044 (S.D. Iowa 2013)

. . . . § 825.104(c)(2). . . .

K. SINGH, v. NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION AND FINANCE, Mr. J. Jr. LLC, Ms. O Mr. Mr. D. Ms. Ms. S., 911 F. Supp. 2d 223 (W.D.N.Y. 2012)

. . . . § 825.104(d). . . .

WILLIAMS, v. CITY OF COLUMBUS, OHIO,, 892 F. Supp. 2d 918 (S.D. Ohio 2012)

. . . . §§ 825.104(c), 825.106. The same regulations do not exist in the context of Title VII. . . . .

BONZANI, v. K. SHINSEKI, M. D., 895 F. Supp. 2d 1003 (E.D. Cal. 2012)

. . . . § 825.104(a), which defines which employers are covered by the FMLA and states that “individuals such . . .

MALENA, v. VICTORIA S SECRET DIRECT, LLC, 886 F. Supp. 2d 349 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)

. . . . § 825.104(d), but to determine whether an individual qualifies as an individual employer acting “in . . .

AINSWORTH, v. LOUDON COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD,, 851 F. Supp. 2d 963 (E.D. Va. 2012)

. . . . § 825.104(d)). . . .

HAYBARGER, v. LAWRENCE COUNTY ADULT PROBATION AND PAROLE, 667 F.3d 408 (3d Cir. 2012)

. . . . § 825.104(a). . . . . § 825.104(d). . . . the employer, any successor in interest of a covered employer, and any public agency.” 29 C.F.R. § 825.104 . . .

CUFF, v. TRANS STATES HOLDINGS, INC. LLC, Ed, 816 F. Supp. 2d 556 (N.D. Ill. 2011)

. . . . § 825.104(c)(2). See Dey v. Marshall, No. 01 C 9810, 2002 WL 773989, at *2 (N.D.Ill. . . .

A. WETH, v. X. O LEARY,, 796 F. Supp. 2d 766 (E.D. Va. 2011)

. . . . § 825.104(d) (2009) (emphasis added). . . . . § 825.104(d) connotes employees of a private corporation, but the clause is introduced by the phrase . . .

DOLLAR, v. SMITHWAY MOTOR XPRESS, INC. a, 787 F. Supp. 2d 896 (N.D. Iowa 2011)

. . . . § 825.104 (1995). b. . . .

MASON, v. MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION,, 774 F. Supp. 2d 349 (D. Mass. 2011)

. . . . § 825.104(a))). . . . (See § 825.600.) 29 C.F.R. § 825.104(a). . . . Id. § 825.104(d). . Módica, 465 F.3d at 186. . Mitchell, 343 F.3d at 832. . Id. . Cf. . . .

SMITH, v. WESTCHESTER COUNTY, K. S. M., 769 F. Supp. 2d 448 (S.D.N.Y. 2011)

. . . . § 825.104(a))). The Court agrees with the reasoning of the Modica court. . . . of an employer’ are individually liable for any violations of the requirements of FMLA. 29 C.F.R. § 825.104 . . .

B. SAAVEDRA v. LOWE S HOME CENTERS, INC., 748 F. Supp. 2d 1273 (D.N.M. 2010)

. . . . § 825.104(d). . . . employer’ are individually liable for any violations of the requirements of the FMLA.” 29 C.F.R. § 825.104 . . .

BRADEN, v. COUNTY OF WASHINGTON,, 749 F. Supp. 2d 299 (W.D. Pa. 2010)

. . . . § 825.104(c)(2). . . .

PHAIR, v. NEW PAGE CORPORATION, 708 F. Supp. 2d 57 (D. Me. 2010)

. . . . § 825.104(c)(1) and (2). . . .

T. SADOWSKI, v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE,, 643 F. Supp. 2d 749 (D. Md. 2009)

. . . . § 825.104(a) provides that "employers covered by FMLA also include any person acting, directly or indirectly . . . the employer, any successor in interest of a covered employer, and any public agency.” 29 C.F.R. § 825.104 . . . See 29 C.F.R. § 825.104(d) (“As under the FLSA, individuals such as corporate officers ‘acting in the . . .

J. BEATTY, v. CUSTOM- PAK, INC., 624 F. Supp. 2d 1045 (S.D. Iowa 2009)

. . . . § 825.104. . . .

BONILLA, v. ELECTROLIZING, INC., 607 F. Supp. 2d 307 (D.R.I. 2009)

. . . . § 825.104(a). . . .

A. DOBROWIAK, v. CONVENIENT FAMILY DENTISTRY, INCORPORATED,, 315 F. App'x 580 (6th Cir. 2009)

. . . . § 825.104(c)(2). . . .

A. CARDINALE, v. SOUTHERN HOMES OF POLK COUNTY, INC. a H. Jr., 310 F. App'x 311 (11th Cir. 2009)

. . . . § 825.104(c)(2). . . . entities be “highly integrated” — just integrated enough to satisfy the factors described in 29 C.F.R. § 825.104 . . . Compare 29 C.F.R. § 825.104(c)(2) with Radio Union, 380 U.S. at 256, 85 S.Ct. 876. . . .

FREES, v. UA LOCAL PLUMBERS AND STEAMFITTERS, a, 589 F. Supp. 2d 1221 (W.D. Wash. 2008)

. . . . § 825.104(c)(1) & 825.106(d) (“Employees jointly employed by two employers must be counted by both . . .

M. BUMGARNER, n k a M. v. GRAFCO INDUSTRIES, LP,, 581 F. Supp. 2d 1052 (S.D. Iowa 2008)

. . . . § 825.104. . . . .

G. HAYDUK, v. CITY OF JOHNSTOWN, F., 580 F. Supp. 2d 429 (W.D. Pa. 2008)

. . . . § 825.104(d). It is clear that the City of Johnstown is an employer under the above definition. . . .

RASIC, v. CITY OF NORTHLAKE, A., 563 F. Supp. 2d 885 (N.D. Ill. 2008)

. . . . § 825.104(d). . . .

ALLEN, v. CITY OF STURGIS,, 559 F. Supp. 2d 837 (W.D. Mich. 2008)

. . . . § 825.104(a) and 825.105(e) (the 20 weeks need not be consecutive). . . . See 29 C.F.R. § 825.104(a) (“Employers covered by FMLA also include ... any public agency. . . .

GRACE, v. USCAR LLC,, 521 F.3d 655 (6th Cir. 2008)

. . . . § 825.104(c)(1). . . . eparate entities will be deemed to be parts of a single employer for purposes of FMLA.” 29 C.F.R. § 825.104 . . . centralized control of labor relations, and (4) degree of common ownership/financial control. 29 C.F.R. § 825.104 . . . integrated employer will be counted in determining employer coverage and employee eligibility.” 29 C.F.R. § 825.104 . . . Compare 29 C.F.R. § 825.106 with § 825.104(c)(2). . . .

HEGRE, v. ALBERTO- CULVER USA, INC. d b a d b a d b a, 485 F. Supp. 2d 1367 (S.D. Ga. 2007)

. . . . § 825.104(c)(2)). To begin, there is no indication of interrelated operations. . . .

ENGELHARDT, v. S. P. RICHARDS COMPANY, INC., 472 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2006)

. . . . § 825.104(c)(2) because of the overlap in the substance and administration of their employment policies . . . motion on the basis that SPR and GPC are not integrated employers within the meaning of 29 C.F.R. § 825.104 . . . where 50 or more employees are employed by the employer within 75 miles of that worksite. 29 C.F.R. 825.104 . . . corporation is a single employer rather than its separate establishments or divisions.” 29 C.F.R. § 825.104 . . . Compare 29 C.F.R. § 825.106 with § 825.104(c)(2). . . .

MODICA, v. TAYLOR,, 465 F.3d 174 (5th Cir. 2006)

. . . . § 825.104(a)). We do not find these arguments persuasive. . . . the employer, any successor in interest of a covered employer, and any public agency.” 29 C.F.R. § 825.104 . . . of an employer” are individually liable for any violations of the requirements of FMLA. 29 C.F.R. § 825.104 . . .

HEWETT, v. WILLINGBORO BOARD OF EDUCATION, D., 421 F. Supp. 2d 814 (D.N.J. 2006)

. . . . § 825.104(d) (“As under the FLSA, individuals such as corporate officers 'acting in the interest of . . .

MONDAINE, v. AMERICAN DRUG STORES, INC. d b a s, 408 F. Supp. 2d 1169 (D. Kan. 2006)

. . . . § 825.104(d) (same standard as “employer” under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 203(d)). . . .

RUSSELL, v. BRONSON HEATING AND COOLING, BCN, 345 F. Supp. 2d 761 (E.D. Mich. 2004)

. . . . § 825.104(c)(2). . . .

L. MORRISON, v. MAGIC CARPET AVIATION, a RDV a a f. n. a., 383 F.3d 1253 (11th Cir. 2004)

. . . . § 825.104(c)(2). Morrison fails to introduce any evidence concerning the first factor. . . .

BREWER, v. JEFFERSON- PILOT STANDARD LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, a k a d b a, 333 F. Supp. 2d 433 (M.D.N.C. 2004)

. . . interest of an employer’ are individually liable for any violations of the requirements of FMLA.” 29 CFR § 825.104 . . .

SCHUBERT, v. BETHESDA HEALTH GROUP, INC., 319 F. Supp. 2d 963 (E.D. Mo. 2004)

. . . . § 825.104(c)(2). . . . fail to recognize is that the regulations require consideration of all four factors, see 29 C.F.R. § 825.104 . . . (c)(2), and the Court believes that § 825.104(c)(2) is entitled to deference. . . .

L. MORRISON, v. AMWAY CORPORATION, n k a, 336 F. Supp. 2d 1193 (M.D. Fla. 2003)

. . . . § 825.104(c)(2)). . . .

L. MITCHELL, v. CHAPMAN,, 343 F.3d 811 (6th Cir. 2003)

. . . . § 825.104(d); see also Chandler v. . . . See 29 C.F.R. § 825.104(a) (“Public agencies are covered employers without regard to the number of employees . . . Title twenty nine 29 C.F.R. § 825.104(a) provides that “employers covered by FMLA also include any person . . . the employer, any successor in interest of a covered employer, and any public agency.” 29 C.F.R. § 825.104 . . . See 29 C.F.R. § 825.104(d) (“As under the FLSA, individuals such as corporate officers ‘acting in the . . .

JOHNSON, v. FAYETTE COUNTY, TENNESSEE,, 271 F. Supp. 2d 1068 (W.D. Tenn. 2003)

. . . . § 825.104(d). . . .

CRUZ- LOVO, v. RYDER SYSTEM, INC., 298 F. Supp. 2d 1248 (S.D. Fla. 2003)

. . . . § 825.104(c)(1). . . . See 29 C.F.R. §§ 825.104, 825.106. . . . Centralized control of labor relations; and (iv) Degree of common ownership/financial control. 29 C.F.R. § 825.104 . . . .1999), the Fourth Circuit thoroughly analyzed the integrated 'employer test set forth in 29 C.F.R. § 825.104 . . . See 29 C.F.R. § 825.104(c). . . .

COUSIN, v. SOFONO, INC. J., 238 F. Supp. 2d 357 (D. Mass. 2003)

. . . . § 825.104 (2002). . . . of any single criterion, but rather the entire relationship ... viewed in its totality.” 29 C.F.R. § 825.104 . . .

P. BROWN, v. CRANFORD TRANSPORTATION SERVICE, INC., 244 F. Supp. 2d 1314 (N.D. Ga. 2002)

. . . . § 825.104 (2002). . . .

C. DARBY, v. BRATCH J. C. Dr. J. a a a, 287 F.3d 673 (8th Cir. 2002)

. . . . § 825.104(d). These regulations also suggest that individual liability arises under the FMLA. . . . Regulations under the FMLA, 29 C.F.R. § 825.104(d) (2001), also take the position that an “employer” . . .

CANTLEY, v. SIMMONS, K., 179 F. Supp. 2d 654 (S.D.W. Va. 2002)

. . . . § 825.104(d). . . . employer’ are individually liable for any violations of the requirements of the FMLA.” 29 C.F.R. § 825.104 . . .

RICHARDSON, v. CVS CORPORATION d b a CVS, 207 F. Supp. 2d 733 (E.D. Tenn. 2001)

. . . . § 825.104. . . .

D. MORROW, v. PUTNAM,, 142 F. Supp. 2d 1271 (D. Nev. 2001)

. . . . § 825.104(d) (2000). . . . employer’ are individually liable for any violations of the requirements of the FMLA.” 29 C.F.R. § 825.104 . . .

PEARSON v. COMPONENT TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION a k a TIFD VIII- R, P., 247 F.3d 471 (3d Cir. 2001)

. . . . § 825.104(c)(2). . . .

J. KEENE, v. RINALDI, U. S. E. U. S. J., 127 F. Supp. 2d 770 (M.D.N.C. 2000)

. . . . '§ 825.104 discusses which employers are covered by the FMLA and states that “individuals such as corporate . . . officers” may be individually liable. 29 C.F.R. § 825.104(d)(emphasis added). . . .

ALDERDICE, v. AMERICAN HEALTH HOLDING, INC., 118 F. Supp. 2d 856 (S.D. Ohio 2000)

. . . . § 825.104(a) states that the FMLA covers any employer that “employs 50 or more employees for each working . . .

LONGSTRETH, v. COPPLE MCI a, 101 F. Supp. 2d 776 (N.D. Iowa 2000)

. . . . § 825.104(d). . . .

J. HUKILL, v. AUTO CARE, INCORPORATED, 192 F.3d 437 (4th Cir. 1999)

. . . . § 825.104(c)(2), and, therefore, the defendants were employers under the FMLA. . . . that ACI, MAI, KPAC, WCAC, VAC, AAC, WSA, and BCG constituted an “integrated employer,” 29 C.F.R. § 825.104 . . . defendants and KPAC, WCAC, VAC, AAC, WSA, and BCG constituted an “integrated employer,” 29 C.F.R. § 825.104 . . . See 29 C.F.R. § 825.104(c)(2). . . . This court need not address whether 29 C.F.R. § 825.104(c)(2) is entitled to full Chevron deference, . . .

L. SLAUGHTER, v. AMERICAN BUILDING MAINTENANCE CO. OF NEW YORK,, 64 F. Supp. 2d 319 (S.D.N.Y. 1999)

. . . . § 825.104(a). . . .

BUSER, v. SOUTHERN FOOD SERVICE, INC., 73 F. Supp. 2d 556 (M.D.N.C. 1999)

. . . . § 825.104(d). . . .

KILVITIS, v. COUNTY OF LUZERNE,, 52 F. Supp. 2d 403 (M.D. Pa. 1999)

. . . . § 825.104(d). . . .

J. WASCURA, v. CARVER,, 169 F.3d 683 (11th Cir. 1999)

. . . . § 825.104, which addresses the issue of “[w]hat employers are covered by the [FMLA],” provides in pertinent . . .

GODWIN, v. RHEEM MANUFACTURING COMPANY,, 15 F. Supp. 2d 1197 (M.D. Ala. 1998)

. . . . § 825.104. . . . .

SHERRY, v. PROTECTION, INC. T., 981 F. Supp. 1133 (N.D. Ill. 1997)

. . . . § 825.104(d). . . .

STUBL, v. T. A. SYSTEMS, INC. a, 984 F. Supp. 1075 (E.D. Mich. 1997)

. . . . § 825.104(d) (emphasis added). . . .

R. GAZDA, v. PIONEER CHLOR ALKALI COMPANY, INC., 10 F. Supp. 2d 656 (S.D. Tex. 1997)

. . . . § 825.104). . . . calendar workweeks in the current or preceding calendar year.” 29 U.S.C. § 2611 (4)(A)(i); 29 C.F.R. § 825.104 . . . See 29 C.F.R. § 825.104(c). . . . . § 825.104(c)(2). See 29 C.F.R. § 825.104(c). . See Exhibit 8 to Sieger Affidavit [Doc. # 42], . . . .

BEAL, v. RUBBERMAID COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS INC., 972 F. Supp. 1216 (S.D. Iowa 1997)

. . . . § 825.104. . See Stewart Dep. at 80. . See Plaintiffs’ Supplement To Oral Argument, page 3. . . . .

A. JOLLIFFE, v. W. MITCHELL, Sr., 971 F. Supp. 1039 (W.D. Va. 1997)

. . . . § 825.104(a) (West 1997). . . .

JOHNSON, v. A. P. PRODUCTS, LTD., 934 F. Supp. 625 (S.D.N.Y. 1996)

. . . . § 825.104(d). . . .

KNUSSMAN v. STATE OF MARYLAND, B. P. D., 935 F. Supp. 659 (D. Md. 1996)

. . . . § 825.104(d). Thus, the Court will look to FLSA case law for guidance on this matter. In Brock v. . . .

WATERS, v. BALDWIN COUNTY, 936 F. Supp. 860 (S.D. Ala. 1996)

. . . . § 825.104(d) (noting equivalence of FMLA’s and FLSA’s definition of employer). . . . As cited in Freemon, 29 C.F.R. § 825.104(d) states that the definition of employer is the same under . . . The regulations codified at 29 C.F.R. § 825.104 discuss these two issues separately, id. at (c) and ( . . .

FREEMON, v. FOLEY, WIC WIC, 911 F. Supp. 326 (N.D. Ill. 1995)

. . . . § 825.104(d)) (noting equivalence of FMLA’s and FLSA’s definition of employer). . . .