(a) This subpart sets forth the procedures to be followed whenever a subpoena, order, or other demand (hereinafter referred to as a demand) of a court or other authority, in connection with a proceeding to which the U.S. Department of Labor is not a party, is issued for the production or disclosure of (1) any material contained in the files of the Department, (2) any information relating to material contained in the files of the Department, or (3) any information or material acquired by any person while such person was an employee of the Department as a part of the performance of his official duties or because of his official status.
(b) For purposes of this subpart, the term employee of the Department includes all officers and employees of the United States Department of Labor appointed by, or subject to the supervision, jurisdiction, or control of the Secretary of Labor.
(c)(1) For purposes of this subpart, the term appropriate Deputy Solicitor of Labor means the Deputy Solicitor of Labor for National Operations when the person served with a demand is either employed by the National Office of the Labor Department, or who is a former Labor Department employee and is served with a demand in Washington, DC. In all other cases, the term appropriate Deputy Solicitor of Labor means the Deputy Solicitor of Labor for Regional Operations.
(2) For purposes of this subpart, the term appropriate Office of the Solicitor means that Office of the Associate Solicitor of Labor (in Washington, DC) serving as counsel to the program to which the demand relates, where the person served with a demand is employed by the National Office of the Labor Department, or who is a former Labor Department employee and is served with a demand in Washington, DC. In all other cases, the term appropriate Office of the Solicitor means that Regional Solicitor's Office or Associate Regional Solicitor's Office serving the locality in which the employee or former employee is served with a demand.
(d) This subpart is intended to provide instructions regarding the internal operations of the Department of Labor, and is not intended, and does not, and may not, be relied upon to create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by a party against the Department of Labor.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
11
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1982–2023 · leading case:
Price v. Simakas Co., 133 A.3d 751 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2016).
Price v. Simakas Co., 133 A.3d 751 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2016).
· cites it 2× “29 C.F.R. § 2.20 (a). Section 2.20 further defines “employee of the Department” as follows: “For purposes of this subpart, the term employee of the Department includes all- officers and employees of the United States Department of Labor appointed by, or subject to the…”
Reynolds Metals Co. v. Crowther, 572 F. Supp. 288 (D. Mass. 1982).
· cites it 2× “In this instance, the refusal of the defendants to testify was at the direction of the Deputy Solicitor of Labor, pursuant to regulations of the Labor Department set forth at 29 C.F.R. 2.20 et seq. These regulations provide, inter alia, that an employee of the Department of…”
Wanda P. Hines v. Brandon Steel Decks, Inc., 886 F.2d 299 (11th Cir. 1989).
“See 29 C.F.R. § 2.20 et seq. While the inability to cross-examine the investigator cannot per se invalidate the report since Rule 803(8) does not depend on the availability of the declarant, it is nonetheless a proper factor to take into consideration when deciding…”
Hotel Employees-Hotel Ass'n Pension Fund v. Timperio, 622 F. Supp. 606 (S.D. Fla. 1985).
“Trimas are Prohibited from Testifying in this Case by Virtue of Labor Department Regulations Set Forth at 29 CFR §§ 2.20 et seq. Labor Department regulations set forth at 29 CFR §§ 2.”
Wade v. Singer Co., 130 F.R.D. 89 (N.D. Ill. 1990).
· cites it 2× “Carlson’s testimony; and that pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 2.20 , et seq., the Department of Labor “has made a valid determination .”
Paris v. Whalen, 666 F. Supp. 715 (M.D. Penn. 1987).
“The Commission found that Paris was involved in a conspiracy to manufacture more than 200,000 doses of amphetamines; therefore, it rated his offense severity as “category 6” pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 2.20 . In making its finding, the Commission relied upon the following statement…”
Foley v. Marlborough (D. Conn. 2023).
“Moses as a witness, pending approval from the United States Department of Labor pursuant to 29 C.F.R. §§ 2.20 - 2.25,” and “[b]ased on Defendant’s description of Ms.”
Metcalfe v. Ultimate Sys. Ltd., 346 F. Supp. 2d 950 (N.D. Ohio 2004).
“issued for the production or disclosure of (1) any material contained in the files of the Department, (2) any information relating to material contained in the files of the Department, or (3) any information or material acquired by any person while such person was an employee of…”
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.