2 U.S.C. § 1315

Rights and protections under Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 2 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Worker adjustment and retraining notification rights(1) In general

No employing office shall be closed or a mass layoff ordered within the meaning of section 3 of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (29 U.S.C. 2102) until the end of a 60-day period after the employing office serves written notice of such prospective closing or layoff to representatives of covered employees or, if there are no representatives, to covered employees.

(2) Definitions

For purposes of this section, the term “covered employee” shall include employees of the Government Accountability Office and the term “employing office” shall include the Government Accountability Office.

(b) Remedy

The remedy for a violation of subsection (a) shall be such remedy as would be appropriate if awarded under paragraphs (1), (2), and (4) of section 5(a) of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (29 U.S.C. 2104(a)(1), (2), and (4)).

The Board shall, pursuant to section 1384 of this title, issue regulations to implement this section.

(2) Agency regulations

The regulations issued under paragraph (1) shall be the same as substantive regulations promulgated by the Secretary of Labor to implement the statutory provisions referred to in subsection (a) except insofar as the Board may determine, for good cause shown and stated together with the regulation, that a modification of such regulations would be more effective for the implementation of the rights and protections under this section.

(d) Effective date(1) In general

Except as provided in paragraph (2), subsections (a) and (b) shall be effective 1 year after January 23, 1995.

(2) Government Accountability Office and Library of Congress

This section shall be effective with respect to the Government Accountability Office and the Library of Congress 1 year after transmission to the Congress of the study under section 1371 of this title.

(Pub. L. 104–1, title II, § 205, Jan. 23, 1995, 109 Stat. 11; Pub. L. 108–271, § 8(b), July 7, 2004, 118 Stat. 814; Pub. L. 115–141, div. I, title I, § 153(a)(2)(B), Mar. 23, 2018, 132 Stat. 785.)Editorial NotesAmendments

2018—Subsec. (a)(2). Pub. L. 115–141 struck out “and the Library of Congress” after “the Government Accountability Office” in two places.

2004—Subsec. (a)(2). Pub. L. 108–271 substituted “Government Accountability Office” for “General Accounting Office” in two places.

Subsec. (d)(2). Pub. L. 108–271 substituted “Government Accountability Office” for “General Accounting Office” in heading and text.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases, 1998–2011 · leading case: Gerard J. Schmelzer v. Off. of Compliance, & Off. of the Chief Admin. Officer of the United States House of Representatives, 155 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 1998).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Gerard J. Schmelzer v. Off. of Compliance, & Off. of the Chief Admin. Officer of the United States House of Representatives, 155 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 1998). · cites it 5× “Sehmelzer petitions for review of a decision -of the Board of Directors- of the Office of Compliance (Board), which held that he was not entitled to relief for an alleged violation of section 205 of the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995(CAA), 2 U.S.C. § 1315 . Because we…”

Newton-Nations v. Betlach, 660 F.3d 370 (9th Cir. 2011). “The Secretary’s Approval of Arizona’s Heightened Cost Sharing in its Demonstration Project Did Not Comply with ¿2 U.S.C. § 1315. Plaintiffs argue that the Secretary’s § 1315 waiver was arbitrary and capricious insofar as the administrative record does not satisfy the standard…”

Castro v. Chicago Hous. Auth., 360 F.3d 721 (7th Cir. 2004). “In that case, the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. § 1315 , adopted the WARN Act and therefore made it applicable to the legislative branch.”

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.