Yes — any employer who employs one or more employees is covered by the Act. The regulation states that "Any employer employing one or more employees would be an ‘employer engaged in a business affecting commerce who has employees' and, therefore, ... is covered by the Act" as set out in 1975.4(a).
Yes — a member of a profession who employs one or more employees is an employer under the Act. The rule explicitly states that professionals such as physicians and attorneys who employ one or more people "come within the definition of an employer" and must comply with the Act and applicable regulations, as described in 1975.4(b)(1).
Yes — any person engaged in agricultural activity who employs one or more employees is covered by the Act. The text states that agricultural employers who have one or more employees "come within the definition of an employer" and are subject to the Act, per 1975.4(b)(2).
No — immediate family members of the farm employer are not regarded as employees for purposes of coverage under the Act. The regulation clarifies that family members working for the farm employer are excluded from the definition of "employees" in that context, as explained in 1975.4(b). For additional guidance on agricultural employer responsibilities and joint-employer issues in the field, see OSHA's Field Sanitation Standard interpretation at https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/standardinterpretations/1994-04-25-0.
No — Indians and Indian tribes are not given special treatment and are treated like any other employer if they meet the employer definition. The regulation explains that the Williams-Steiger Act contains no special provisions for Indians, and "provided they otherwise come within the definition of the term ‘employer' ... Indians and Indian tribes ... will be treated as employers subject to the requirements of the Act," as set out in 1975.4(b)(3). OSHA has reiterated jurisdiction and equal treatment of reservation employers in its reservation-jurisdiction interpretation at https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/standardinterpretations/1993-03-25-0.
Yes — nonprofit and charitable organizations that employ one or more employees are covered by the Act. The regulation explains that economic tests like profit motive should not be used to exclude employers, and therefore charitable or non-profit organizations with at least one employee are subject to the Act, as explained in 1975.4(b)(4).
Yes — churches and religious organizations are employers for non-religious, secular activities where they employ one or more persons. The regulation states that churches are considered employers when they employ persons in secular activities, as described in 1975.4(c)(1).
No — persons performing or participating in religious services are not regarded as employees for the purposes of the Act while they are performing those services. The regulation explains that performance of religious services (as distinguished from secular or proprietary activities) "will be regarded as not constituting employment under the Act," as noted in 1975.4(c)(2).
It depends on whether the volunteers qualify as employees under the Act; unpaid volunteers who receive no compensation are generally not considered employees under Federal OSHA. OSHA explains that whether an employment relationship exists is a fact-specific legal determination, but where volunteers receive no monetary or other compensation they are typically not employees covered by federal OSHA, as discussed in the interpretation "Applicability to volunteers" at https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/standardinterpretations/2005-05-13. Note that some State Plan jurisdictions may extend coverage to volunteers, so check your State's rules as OSHA noted in that same interpretation.
No — lack of profit motive is not a valid basis to exclude an employer from coverage. The regulation makes clear that economic tests such as whether a business is operated to make a profit should not be used to exclude non-profit or charitable employers that employ one or more people from the protections of the Act, as stated in 1975.4(b)(4).
Yes — a private hospital owned or operated by a religious organization is covered because it involves secular, proprietary activities. The regulation lists private hospitals owned or operated by religious organizations as examples of covered activities, as explained in 1975.4(c)(2).
Yes — persons are not regarded as employers or employees under the Act while they are performing or participating in religious services even if they receive remuneration for those services. The regulation explicitly states that such persons "are not regarded as an employer or employee under the Act" during performance of religious services, as set out in 1975.4(c)(2).
Yes — an association or cooperative can be treated as a joint employer where facts show it recruits, supervises, or otherwise shares employer responsibilities for agricultural workers. OSHA's Field Sanitation Standard interpretation explains that the joint-employer determination is fact-specific and that entities like grower associations may be joint employers when they recruit and supervise the workers, as discussed in the Field Sanitation interpretation at https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/standardinterpretations/1994-04-25-0 and consistent with the broad employer coverage principles in 1975.4(b)(2).
You must apply the tests in 29 CFR 1975.5 to see if the entity is a state or political subdivision (and therefore outside the employer definition), using a set of factual factors about creation, control, powers, and legal status. OSHA's interpretation concerning a state hospital walks through those tests and relevant factors for determining whether an entity is a political subdivision exempt from coverage; see the state hospital interpretation at https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/standardinterpretations/2001-08-27-0 and consider the tests summarized in 1975.
Yes — the policy that excludes individuals who privately employ persons in their own residence for ordinary domestic household tasks extends to caring for elderly household members. OSHA's interpretation explains that the exemption described in 1975.6 for domestic household tasks would include caring for elderly members of the household, as discussed in the interpretation at https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/standardinterpretations/2001-02-21 and related policy in 1975.
Yes — employees working on Indian reservations are entitled to the same rights and protections under the OSH Act and OSHA has jurisdiction to inspect and require compliance where the employer meets the Act's definition. OSHA has stated that the Act contains no special provisions for Indians and that employers on reservations are treated like any other private sector employer, as explained in the reservation jurisdiction interpretation at https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/standardinterpretations/1993-03-25-0 and consistent with 1975.4(b)(3).
Yes — commercial or proprietary activities run by religious organizations are treated as employment and are covered if the organization employs one or more persons in those secular activities. The regulation gives examples of commercial establishments of religious organizations (such as bakeries or producers of goods) as covered, per 1975.4(c)(2).
Yes — a charitable or non-profit organization that employs even a single employee is covered by the Act and must comply with applicable OSHA provisions. The regulation makes clear that any charitable or non-profit organization employing one or more persons is covered, as stated in 1975.4(b)(4).
Not automatically — whether someone is an "employee" depends on a fact-specific common-law employment analysis; non-monetary benefits can affect but do not by themselves determine employee status. OSHA's interpretation on volunteers explains that the employment relationship is a complex legal determination made case-by-case using common law principles, and that uncompensated volunteers are generally not employees under Federal OSHA, while compensated or otherwise dependent volunteers may be, as discussed in https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/standardinterpretations/2005-05-13.