34 C.F.R. § 361.110
What are the program-specific requirements in the Unified State Plan for the adult, dislocated worker, and youth programs authorized under Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act title I?
The program-specific requirements for the adult, dislocated worker, and youth programs that must be included in the Unified State Plan are described in sec. 102(b)(2)(D) of WIOA. Additional planning requirements may be explained in joint planning guidelines issued by the Secretaries of Labor and Education.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2
cases, 1987–1996 · leading case: Brantley Ex Rel. Brantley v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 625, 936 F. Supp. 649 (D. Minnesota 1996).
Brantley Ex Rel. Brantley v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 625, 936 F. Supp. 649 (D. Minnesota 1996). “The court rejected the argument that mandatory language contained in 34 C.F.R. § 361.110 , et seq., alone created a federally protected right for purposes of § 1983.”
Smith v. Kirk, 821 F.2d 980 (4th Cir. 1987). “The fact that Congress provided funding only for rehabilitation services that produced successful rehabilitation and not carte blanche funding indicates that it did not intend to create an entitlement to rehabilitation services.”
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.