29 C.F.R. § 785.28
Involuntary attendance
Attendance is not voluntary, of course, if it is required by the employer. It is not voluntary in fact if the employee is given to understand or led to believe that his present working conditions or the continuance of his employment would be adversely affected by nonattendance.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 21
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1974–2023 · leading case: Elaine L. Chao, Sec'y of Labor, United States Dep't of Labor v. Tradesmen Int'l, Inc., 310 F.3d 904 (6th Cir. 2002).
Elaine L. Chao, Sec'y of Labor, United States Dep't of Labor v. Tradesmen Int'l, Inc., 310 F.3d 904 (6th Cir. 2002). “29 C.F.R. § 785.28 . In concluding that Plaintiffs’ attendance was involuntary, the district court ruled that: Under the definition of “involuntary” in 29 C.”
Bull v. United States, 68 Fed. Cl. 212 (Fed. Cl. 2005). “” 29 C.F.R. § 785.28 (emphasis added). . DOL's analogous regulations provide that "training'directly related to the employee’s job” is training "designed to make the employee handle his job more effectively as distinguished from training him for another job, or to a new or…”
Maryam Balbed v. Eden Park Guest House, LLC, 881 F.3d 285 (4th Cir. 2018). “Eden Park cross-moved for summary judgment, maintaining that the parties’ written contract constituted a “reasonable agreement” under 29 C.F.R. § 785.28 , and that this exempted Eden Park from all other FLSA requirements.”
Nehmelman v. Penn Nat'l Gaming, Inc., 822 F. Supp. 2d 745 (N.D. Ill. 2011). “” 29 C.F.R. § 785.28 . Plaintiff and the OpNIns claim that they have presented evidence that Empress led Dealers to believe that they needed to learn more games in order to be “better” and “more valuable” employees.”
Serv. Employees Int'l Union, Local 102 Prob. Officers Ass'n Roslinda Arellanes Teresa Ayala Renee U. Bonner v. Cnty. of San Diego, 60 F.3d 1346 (9th Cir. 1995). “” 29 C.F.R. § 785.28 . The district court held the regulation was “not necessarily applicable where .”
Fowler v. Incor, 279 F. App'x 590 (10th Cir. 2008). “It is not voluntary in fact if the employee is given to understand or led to believe that his present working conditions or the continuance of his employment would be adversely affected by nonattendance.”
Maynor v. Dow Chem. Co., 671 F. Supp. 2d 902 (S.D. Tex. 2009). “” 29 C.F.R. § 785.28 . Dow does not argue that the assessments themselves were voluntary.”
Seever v. Carrols Corp., 528 F. Supp. 2d 159 (W.D.N.Y. 2007). “” 29 C.F.R. § 785.28 . Rodriguez, however, testified that despite her manager’s telling her dai *168 ly that she ought to train for a promotion to Shift Supervisor, her manager never suggested that she would be fired if she refused, and Rodriguez knew that she would keep her…”
Gibbs v. City of New York, 87 F. Supp. 3d 482 (S.D.N.Y. 2015). “” 29 C.F.R. § 785.28 . . The "predominant benefit” standard grew out of employee break time cases.”
Bradley Debraska v. City of Milwaukee, 189 F.3d 650 (7th Cir. 1999). “” 29 C.F.R. § 785.28 . Because the outcome of a preliminary inquiry does not adversely affect either working conditions or the continuation of employment — and because Milwaukee does not draw an adverse inference from the submission of a written statement instead of an oral one…”
Henry T. Price v. Tampa Elec. Co., 806 F.2d 1551 (11th Cir. 1987). “29 C.F.R. § 785.28 . TECO did not require that me-termen take the course to continue working in this position.”
Wilson v. Cnty. of Santa Clara, 68 Cal. App. 3d 78 (Cal. Ct. App. 1977). “” ( 29 C.F.R. § 785.28 .) We believe that those principles should control the trainee’s right to compensation in the absence of any provision in the contract of employment to the contrary.”
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.