C.F.R. » Title 29 » CHAPTER XXV—EMPLOYEE BENEFITS SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR › SUBCHAPTER B—DEFINITIONS AND COVERAGE UNDER THE EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT INCOME SECURITY ACT OF 1974 › PART 2510—DEFINITION OF TERMS USED IN SUBCHAPTERS C, D, E, F, G, AND L OF THIS CHAPTER

29 C.F.R. § 2510.3-5

[Reserved]

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2019–2022 · leading case: New York v. U.S. Dept. Of Labor, 363 F. Supp. 3d 109 (D.C. Cir. 2019).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
New York v. U.S. Dept. Of Labor, 363 F. Supp. 3d 109 (D.C. Cir. 2019). · cites it 13× “29 C.F.R. § 2510.3-5 (c). Before the Final Rule, "geography, alone, was not sufficient to establish commonality.”
Data Mktg. P'ship v. LABR, 45 F.4th 846 (5th Cir. 2022). · cites it 2× “28,912 , 28,931 (June 21, 2018); 29 C.F.R. § 2510.3-5 (e). These omissions doom the Department’s action.”
State of New York v. United States Dep't of Labor (D.D.C. 2019). · cites it 10× “29 C.F.R. § 2510.3-5 (c). Before the Final Rule, “geography, alone, was not sufficient to establish commonality.”
Mccaffree Fin. Corp. v. Adp, Inc. (D.N.J. 2022). “See 29 C.F.R. § 2510.3-5 . In the preamble, and more particularly “[i]n a section discussing the potential for fraud in [multiple-employer plans], the DOL explained, ‘employers exercise a fiduciary duty in choosing to begin and continue participating in a [multiple-employer…”
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.