C.F.R. » Title 41 » CHAPTER 60—OFFICE OF FEDERAL CONTRACT COMPLIANCE PROGRAMS, EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR › PART 60-741—AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AND NONDISCRIMINATION OBLIGATIONS OF FEDERAL CONTRACTORS AND SUBCONTRACTORS REGARDING INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES › Subpart B—Discrimination Prohibited

41 C.F.R. § 60-741.20

Covered employment activities

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

The prohibition against discrimination in this part applies to the following employment activities:

(a) Recruitment, advertising, and job application procedures;

(b) Hiring, upgrading, promotion, award of tenure, demotion, transfer, layoff, termination, right of return from layoff, and rehiring;

(c) Rates of pay or any other form of compensation and changes in compensation;

(d) Job assignments, job classifications, organizational structures, position descriptions, lines of progression, and seniority lists;

(e) Leaves of absence, sick leave, or any other leave;

(f) Fringe benefits available by virtue of employment, whether or not administered by the contractor;

(g) Selection and financial support for training, including apprenticeships, professional meetings, conferences and other related activities, and selection for leaves of absence to pursue training;

(h) Activities sponsored by the contractor including social and recreational programs; and

(i) Any other term, condition, or privilege of employment.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 1983–2013 · leading case: Joel T. Howard v. Uniroyal, Inc., 719 F.2d 1552 (11th Cir. 1983).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Joel T. Howard v. Uniroyal, Inc., 719 F.2d 1552 (11th Cir. 1983). “The contractor will take such action with respect to any subcontract or purchase order as the Director of the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs may direct to enforce such provisions, including action for noncompliance.”
UPMC Braddock v. Harris, 934 F. Supp. 2d 238 (D.D.C. 2013). “3 ; 41 C.F.R. § 60-741.20 )(2); 41 C.F.R. § 60-250.”
Dees v. California State Univ., Hayward, 33 F. Supp. 2d 1190 (N.D. Cal. 1998). · cites it 2× “32, 41 C.F.R. § 60-741.20 to § 60-741.32. Thus, for the same reasons the Ninth Circuit found the OFCCP’s decision to forego enforcement proceedings under VEVRA immune from judicial review, this Court finds the OFCCP’s decision to forego enforcement proceedings under section 503…”
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.