12 U.S.C. § 1790
Nondiscriminatory provision
It is not the purpose of this subchapter to discriminate in any manner against State-chartered credit unions and in favor of Federal credit unions, but it is the purpose of this subchapter to provide all credit unions with the same opportunity to obtain and enjoy the benefits of this subchapter.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3
cases, 1999–2020 · leading case: Simas v. First Citizens' Fed. Credit Union, 63 F. Supp. 2d 110 (D. Mass. 1999).
Simas v. First Citizens' Fed. Credit Union, 63 F. Supp. 2d 110 (D. Mass. 1999). “3d at 46 (quoting 12 U.S.C. § 1790 (a)(1)). The test to determine whether an individual suffered a constructive discharge is whether the “working conditions [were] so intolerable [ ] that a reasonable person would feel compelled to forsake his job rather than to submit to…”
Dunton v. AEA Fed. Credit Union (D. Ariz. 2020). “25 12 U.S.C. § 1790 (b)(a)(1). To establish a prima facie claim of retaliation under this 26 provision, a plaintiff must demonstrate that: (1) he engaged in protected activity; (2) 27 defendant knew of this exercise of his protected rights; (3) defendant subsequently took 28 an…”
Farmer v. Hickam Fed. Credit Union, 224 P.3d 455 (Haw. App. 2010). “Moreover, the HWPA and 12 U.S.C. § 1790 (b) contain remedies for violations of their provisions, and thus they cannot provide the basis for a Parnar public policy claim.”
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.