U.S. Code » Title 28 » Part PART III— COURT OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES › Chapter CHAPTER 42— FEDERAL JUDICIAL CENTER

28 U.S.C. § 623

Duties of the Board

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 28 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) In its direction and supervision of the activities of the Federal Judicial Center, the Board shall—(1) establish such policies and develop such programs for the Federal Judicial Center as will further achievement of its purpose and performance of its functions;(2) formulate recommendations for improvements in the administration of the courts of the United States, in the training of the personnel of those courts, and in the management of their resources;(3) submit to the Judicial Conference of the United States, at least one month in advance of its annual meeting, a report of the activities of the Center and such recommendations as the Board may propose for the consideration of the Conference;(4) present to other government departments agencies, and instrumentalities whose programs or activities relate to the administration of justice in the courts of the United States the recommendations of the Center for the improvement of such programs or activities;(5) study and determine ways in which automatic data processing and systems procedures may be applied to the administration of the courts of the United States, and include in the annual report required by paragraph (3) of this subsection details of the results of the studies and determinations made pursuant to this paragraph;(6) consider and recommend to both public and private agencies aspects of the operation of the courts of the United States deemed worthy of special study; and(7) conduct, coordinate, and encourage programs relating to the history of the judicial branch of the United States Government.(b) The Board shall transmit to Congress and to the Attorney General of the United States copies of all reports and recommendations submitted to the Judicial Conference of the United States. The Board shall also keep the Committees on the Judiciary of the United States Senate and House of Representatives fully and currently informed with respect to the activities of the Center.(Added Pub. L. 90–219, title I, § 101, Dec. 20, 1967, 81 Stat. 665; amended Pub. L. 100–702, title III, § 302, Nov. 19, 1988, 102 Stat. 4648.)Editorial NotesAmendments

1988—Subsec. (a)(7). Pub. L. 100–702 added par. (7).

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesTermination of Reporting Requirements

For termination, effective May 15, 2000, of provisions in subsec. (b) of this section relating to requirement that the Board transmit to Congress copies of all reports and recommendations submitted to the Judicial Conference of the United States, see section 3003 of Pub. L. 104–66, as amended, set out as a note under section 1113 of Title 31, Money and Finance, and page 12 of House Document No. 103–7.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1982–2025 · leading case: Robert H. E. Frank, Jerry D. Mooberry, Tyrone G. Moreno v. U.S. West, Inc., 3 F.3d 1357 (10th Cir. 1993).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Robert H. E. Frank, Jerry D. Mooberry, Tyrone G. Moreno v. U.S. West, Inc., 3 F.3d 1357 (10th Cir. 1993). “§ 2000e-2; 28 U.S.C. § 623 . Whether Defendant was Plaintiffs’ employer depends upon whether Defendant is liable for the acts of its subsidiary, Northwestern Bell.”
Gutierrez-Lines v. Puerto Rico Elec. & Power Auth., 751 F. Supp. 2d 327 (D.P.R. 2010). “2005) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 623 (d)). Where, as here, no direct evidence of retaliation is available, the Court’s analysis closely resembles the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting scheme above.”
Balut v. Loral Elec. Sys., 988 F. Supp. 339 (S.D.N.Y. 1997). “Employer Liability First, defendants argue that the case against Loral must be dismissed, because Loral was not Balut’s employer. To estab-' lish a case for employment discrimination, plaintiff must set forth sufficient facts to show, inter alia, that defendants employed him.”
Steve Salvato & James Duffy v. Illinois Dep't of Human Rights & Illinois Dep't of Cent. Mgmt. Servs., 155 F.3d 922 (7th Cir. 1998). “privilege of employment,” 28 U.S.C. § 623 (a)(1), by IDHR’s failure to put them in line for positions other than Human Rights Specialists, Grades I and II.”
Sellers v. Deere & Co., 23 F. Supp. 3d 968 (N.D. Iowa 2014). “” 28 U.S.C. § 623 (d). Similarly, the ICRA makes it a discriminatory practice for any person to retaliate against another person “because such person has lawfully opposed any practice forbidden under this chapter, obeys the provisions of this chapter, or has filed a complaint,…”
Eubanks v. Harvard Indus., Inc., 712 F. Supp. 146 (E.D. Ark. 1989). · cites it 2× “” Plaintiff contends that her rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 28 U.S.C.A. § 623 1 were violated in that she was "discriminated against and fired because of her age and was replaced by an untrained individual who was substantially younger than plaintiff.”
Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Bd. of Trs. of Wayne Cnty. Cmty. Coll., 723 F.2d 509 (6th Cir. 1983). “In addition, the EEOC filed a complaint alleging that the Board’s actions constituted age discrimination in violation of section 4(a) of the Age Discrimination' in Employment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 623 (a) (1976). The Board of Trustees moved to dismiss the EEOC’s complaint under Fed.”
Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 577 F. Supp. 1029 (D.N.J. 1982). “If the employer’s construction is correct, then there is no ADEA violation because the employer’s action was based on reasonable factors other than age, 28 U.S.C. § 623 (f)(1), or was in observance of the terms of a .”
Dunn v. Tutera Grp., 181 F.R.D. 653 (D. Kan. 1998). “In this case, plaintiffs complaint is sufficient under these standards, since she alleges that she exhausted administrative remedies and received a right to sue letter. Plaintiff also alleges that defendants are Title VII employers and that she worked for defendants during the…”
Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Kentucky State Police Dep't, 80 F.3d 1086 (6th Cir. 1996). “On October 31, 1986, Congress amended section four of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 28 U.S.C. § 623 , to make age a bona fide occupational qualification for law enforcement personnel whose duties "are primarily the investigation, apprehension, or detention of…”
Air Line Pilots Ass'n, Int'l v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 547 F. Supp. 1221 (S.D.N.Y. 1982). “This is consistent with the policy of the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) which since 1960 has mandated retirement at age sixty for Captains and First Officers. 14 C.”
Monroe v. United Air Lines, Inc., 736 F.2d 394 (7th Cir. 1984). “” 28 U.S.C. § 623 (f)(2). Congress became concerned as courts read (f)(2) to allow mandatory retirement based on age under pension plans and amended that section in 1978.”
Show all 19 citing cases →
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.