41 C.F.R. § 60-40.1
Purpose and scope
This part contains the general rules of the OFCCP providing for public access to information from records of the OFCCP or its various compliance agencies. These regulations implement 5 U.S.C. 552, the Freedom of Information Act and supplement the policy and regulations of the Department of Labor, 29 CFR part 70. It is the policy of the OFCCP to disclose information to the public and to cooperate with other public agencies as well as private parties seeking to eliminate discrimination in employment. This part sets forth generally the categories of records accessible to the public, the types of records subject to prohibitions or restrictions on disclosure, and the places at which and the procedures whereby members of the public may obtain access to and inspect and copy information from records in the custody of the OFCCP.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12
cases, 1974–1982 · leading case: Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 U.S. 281 (1979).
Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 U.S. 281 (1979). “" 41 CFR § 60-40.1 (1978). The respondents argue that "[t]he purpose of the Executive Order is to combat discrimination in employment, and a disclosure policy designed to further this purpose is consistent with the Executive Order and an appropriate subject for regulation under…”
Metro. Life Ins. v. Usery, 426 F. Supp. 150 (D.D.C. 1976). “The federal defendants’ argument that disclosure is authorized by the regulations implementing the FOIA, 41 C.F.R. §§ 60-40.1 et seq. ignores the fact that the Act is not a source of authority for promulgating regulations on information exempt under the Act.”
Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Gen. Servs. Admin., 384 F. Supp. 996 (D.D.C. 1974). “That committee agreed with defendants that the Freedom of Information Act and OFCC disclosure regulations, 41 C.F.R. § 60-40.1 et seq., require defendants to disclose the material sought by CEP.”
Chrysler Corp. v. Schlesinger, 412 F. Supp. 171 (D. Del. 1976). “The complaint contains three numbered counts: 1) that 41 C.F.R. § 60-40.1 et seq., 29 C.F.R. § 70.”
Crown Cent. Petroleum Corp. v. Kleppe, 424 F. Supp. 744 (D. Maryland 1976). “Under the relevant Disclosure Rules, 41 C.F.R. § 60-40.1 et seq., disclosure of EEO-l’s and AAP’s by GSA/OFCC is authorized by law.”
Gen. Dynamics Corp. v. Dunlop, 427 F. Supp. 578 (E.D. Mo. 1976). “Defendants are also responsible for complying with the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act, Section 552, Title 5, United States Code (1970), and the disclosure regulations which implement that Act, 41 CFR § 60-40.1 et seq. (1975). *580 7. By letter dated July 3, 1975,…”
Liberty Mut. Ins. v. Friedman, 485 F. Supp. 695 (D. Maryland 1979). “” 41 C.F.R. § 60-40.1 (1977). The Government argues that “[t]he purpose of the Executive Order is to combat discrimination in employment, and a disclosure policy designed to further this purpose is consistent with the Executive Order and an appropriate subject for regulation…”
Chrysler Corp. v. Schlesinger, 565 F.2d 1172 (3rd Cir. 1977). “*1177 41 C.F.R. § 60-40.1 . Consistent with the general policy of disclosure to aid in eliminating employment discrimination, the regulations provide: Upon the request of any person for identifiable records obtained or generated pursuant to Executive Order 11246 (as amended)…”
Gen. Dynamics Corp. v. Marshall, 572 F.2d 1211 (8th Cir. 1978). “The provisions of FOIA are applicable to records submitted to the compliance agencies, and in addition the Secretary of Labor has promulgated regulations setting out guidelines for the disclosure of information received by the OFCC or its compliance agencies from government…”
Associated Dry Goods Corp. v. Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n, 543 F. Supp. 950 (E.D. Va. 1982). “41 C.F.R. §§ 60-40.1 to 60-40-41 (1978). 15 .”
Westinghouse Elec. Corp.-Rsch. & Dev. Ctr. v. Brown, 443 F. Supp. 1225 (E.D. Va. 1977). “) and the OFCCP ( 41 C.F.R. § 60-40.1 et seq.) declared unconstitutional per se or as applied to plaintiff on the ground that these regulations failed to afford notice and adequate opportunity to be heard to suppliers of confidential information who felt threatened by a proposed…”
Westinghouse Elec. Corp., Etc. v. Brown, 443 F. Supp. 1225 (E.D. Va. 1977). “) and the OFCCP ( 41 C.F.R. § 60-40.1 et seq. ) declared unconstitutional per se or as applied to plaintiff on the ground that these regulations failed to afford notice and adequate opportunity to be heard to suppliers of confidential information who felt threatened by a…”
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.