(a) Section 303(a)(1) of the Social Security Act (SSA), 42 U.S.C. 503(a)(1), requires that a State law include provision for:
Such methods of administration . . . as are found by the Secretary of Labor to be reasonably calculated to insure full payment of unemployment compensation when due.
(b) Section 303(a)(6), SSA, 42 U.S.C. 505(a)(6), requires that a State law include provision for:
The making of such reports, in such form and containing such information, as the Secretary of Labor may from time to time require, and compliance with such provisions as the Secretary of Labor may from time to time find necessary to assure the correctness and verification of such reports.
(c) Section 303(b), SSA, 42 U.S.C. 503(b), provides in part that:
Whenever the Secretary of Labor, after reasonable notice and opportunity for hearing to the State agency charged with the administration of the State law, finds that in the administration of the law there is—
(2) a failure to comply substantially with any provision specified in subsection (a);
the Secretary of Labor shall notify such State agency that further payments will not be made to the State until the Secretary of Labor is satisfied that there is no longer any such denial or failure to comply. Until he is so satisfied, he shall make no further certification to the Secretary of the Treasury with respect to such State . . . . (d) Certification of payment of granted funds to a State is withheld only when the Secretary finds, after reasonable notice and opportunity for hearing to the State agency—
(1) That any provision required by section 303(a) of the Social Security Act is no longer included in the State UC law, or
(2) That in the administration of the State UC law there has been a failure to comply substantially with any required provision of such law.
[52 FR 33528, Sept. 3, 1987, as amended at 71 FR 35513, June 21, 2006]
Notes of Decisions
Rios v. Marshall, 530 F. Supp. 351 (S.D.N.Y. 1981).
“§ 1101 (a)(15)(H)(ii) and 20 C.F.R. § 602.10 , *363 but nevertheless dismissed the claim on the ground that “the alleged animus against legal workers is contradicted by plaintiffs’ own allegations that defendants deprive both legal and illegal farm workers of statutory…”
Frederick Cnty. Fruit Growers' Ass'n v. Marshall, 436 F. Supp. 218 (W.D. Va. 1977).
· cites it 2× “Under the authority of the INA and the regulations of the INS, the Secretary of Labor has promulgated regulations at 20 C.F.R. §§ 602.10 , 10a and 10b which set forth the requirements and procedures applicable to requests for certification by employers seeking the services of…”
11 Fair empl.prac.cas. 636, 10 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 10,420 Louis Lopez v. Arrowhead Ranches, 523 F.2d 924 (9th Cir. 1975).
“…of the Immigration and Nationality Act, see 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101 (a)(15)(H)(ii), 1182(a)(14), federal regulations, see 20 C.F.R. § 602.10 , 29 C.F.R. §§ 60.1-60.6 , state health and sanitation laws, and provisions of the Social Security and Internal Revenue Acts, as a result of…”
Reinaldo Hernandez Flecha v. Hon. Carlos Quiros, Etc., F. Ray Marshall, U. S. Sec'y of Labor, 567 F.2d 1154 (1st Cir. 1977).
“§§ 1101 (a)(15)(H)(ii), 1184(c) (1970); 20 C.F.R. §§ 602.10 -10b (1977). At the same time, under the statute, employers are protected by permitting the admission of aliens when there is no supply of domestic workers who are “able, willing, qualified, and available.”
Williams v. Usery, 531 F.2d 305 (5th Cir. 1976).
· cites it 2× “Williams argues that this delay is required by the regulation, 20 C.F.R. § 602.10 (b). 4 But this misreads the regulation.”
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Scott Paper Co., 440 F.2d 625 (1st Cir. 1971).
“2 The threshold issue 3 in this application involves a determination of the compatibility of the Immigration Laws and Labor Department Regula *627 tions governing “bonded workers”, 20 C.F.R. § 602.10 , with the instruments of national labor policy, free collective bargaining and…”
Gooch v. Clark, 433 F.2d 74 (9th Cir. 1970).
“2 (h) (2) (ii); 20 C.F.R. § 602.10 . . Cf. Hess v. Esperdy (S.”
Phillips v. Brock, 652 F. Supp. 1372 (D. Maryland 1987).
“The predecessor H-2 regulations, 20 C.F.R. § 602.10 et seq., adopted in 1967, provided as follows: The offers to U.”
Elton Orchards, Inc. v. Brennan, 382 F. Supp. 1049 (D.N.H. 1974).
· cites it 3× “Plaintiff asserts, in effect, that it has been victimized by the application solely to it of Federal Labor Regulation 20 C.F.R. § 602.10 . That Regulation provides, in essence, for the protection of the American labor market by requiring an employer to make best efforts to…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.