29 C.F.R. § 1627.10
Notices to be posted
Every employer, employment agency, and labor organization which has an obligation under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 shall post and keep posted in conspicuous places upon its premises the notice pertaining to the applicability of the Act prescribed by the Commission or its authorized representative. Such a notice must be posted in prominent and accessible places where it can readily be observed by employees, applicants for employment and union members.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17
cases, 1982–2014 · leading case: Edgeworth v. Fort Howard Paper Co., 673 F. Supp. 922 (N.D. Ill. 1987).
Edgeworth v. Fort Howard Paper Co., 673 F. Supp. 922 (N.D. Ill. 1987). “" 29 C.F.R. § 1627.10 . The Seventh Circuit has not had occasion to consider the issue of equitable tolling in this situation.”
Cristina Cruz v. Nilda Maypa, 773 F.3d 138 (4th Cir. 2014). “Compare 29 C.F.R. § 1627.10 (requiring employers to “post and keep posted in conspicuous places .”
Carl Kale v. Combined Ins. Co. of Am., Carl Kale v. Combined Ins. Co. of Am., 861 F.2d 746 (1st Cir. 1988). “See 29 C.F.R. § 1627.10 (1987) (The notice "must be posted in prominent and accessible places where it can readily be observed by employees, applicants for employment and union members.”
Allen v. Marshall Field & Co., 93 F.R.D. 438 (N.D. Ill. 1982). “We note— without deciding whether it determines the issue of which of the potential claimants can actually opt-in to this action — that Marshall Field does not contradict the plaintiffs’ assertion that it failed conspicuously to post specific notices informing its employees of…”
Wilfred H. VANCE, Appellee, v. WHIRLPOOL Corp., Appellant, 716 F.2d 1010 (4th Cir. 1983). “29 C.F.R. § 1627.10 (1981). Congress imposed this requirement to insure that covered employees would be informed of their rights, and in the present case Whirlpool’s failure to post such a notice prevented Vance from *1013 learning of his ADEA rights at the time of his discharge.”
Thomas Schroeder v. Copley Newspaper, D/B/A Waukegan News-Sun, an Illinois Corp., 879 F.2d 266 (7th Cir. 1989). “See also 29 C.F.R. § 1627.10 ; Kephart v. Institute of Gas Technology, 581 F.”
Comfort v. Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst., 575 F. Supp. 258 (N.D.N.Y. 1983). “She states: During the period of plaintiff’s employment at RPI from May 15, 1979 until her termination on September 11, 1981 posters advising employees of their rights under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and required by EEOC regulations were posted in conspicuous…”
Galvin v. State of Vermont, 598 F. Supp. 144 (D. Vt. 1984). “§ 627 , 29 C.F.R. § 1627.10 (1984). The purpose of this provision is to insure that employees are informed of their rights under the Act.”
English v. Pabst Brewing Co., 828 F.2d 1047 (4th Cir. 1987). “§ 627 ; 29 C.F.R. § 1627.10 . If an employer violates the posting requirement, the charging period is tolled until the plaintiff “acquires actual knowledge of his rights or retains an attorney.”
Moon v. Aeronca, Inc., 541 F. Supp. 747 (S.D. Ohio 1982). “§ 627 , and regulation, 29 C.F.R. § 1627.10 (1981), which describes in detail employment practices prohibited by the ADEA, and the necessity for promptly filing written charges with the relevant enforcement agency.”
Morse v. Daily Press, Inc., 826 F.2d 1351 (4th Cir. 1987). “§ 627 (1985); 29 C.F.R. § 1627.10 . This argument in semantics is not persuasive.”
Clark v. Resistoflex Co., 665 F. Supp. 1216 (M.D. La. 1987). “§ 627 and 29 C.F.R. 1627.10. Therefore, he argues that- the 180 days did not begin to run until he possessed actual knowledge of the right to be enforced and that occurred when he consulted with his attorneys.”
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.