29 U.S.C. § 103

Nonenforceability of undertakings in conflict with public policy; “yellow dog” contracts

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 29 CasesGoogle Scholar

Any undertaking or promise, such as is described in this section, or any other undertaking or promise in conflict with the public policy declared in section 102 of this title, is declared to be contrary to the public policy of the United States, shall not be enforceable in any court of the United States and shall not afford any basis for the granting of legal or equitable relief by any such court, including specifically the following:

Every undertaking or promise hereafter made, whether written or oral, express or implied, constituting or contained in any contract or agreement of hiring or employment between any individual, firm, company, association, or corporation, and any employee or prospective employee of the same, whereby

(a) Either party to such contract or agreement undertakes or promises not to join, become, or remain a member of any labor organization or of any employer organization; or

(b) Either party to such contract or agreement undertakes or promises that he will withdraw from an employment relation in the event that he joins, becomes, or remains a member of any labor organization or of any employer organization.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 18 cases, 1938–2016 · leading case: Brady v. Nat'l Football League, 644 F.3d 661 (8th Cir. 2011).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Brady v. Nat'l Football League, 644 F.3d 661 (8th Cir. 2011). · cites it 2× “" 29 U.S.C. § 103 (b). The term "any" is an expansive modifier for "relation of employment," and especially where the Supreme Court has emphasized the breadth of the NLGA's prohibition on injunctions, it would be odd to apply a narrow construction of "any relation of employment.”

Morvant v. P.F. Chang's China Bistro, Inc., 870 F. Supp. 2d 831 (N.D. Cal. 2012). · cites it 2× “Horton, supra, at *7 (citing 29 U.S.C. § 103 ). The NLRB concluded that “an arbitration agreement imposed upon individual employees as a condition of employment cannot be held to prohibit employees from pursuing an employment-related class, collective, or joint action in Federal…”

Sheila Warnock SEUS, Appellant, v. JOHN NUVEEN & CO., INC., 146 F.3d 175 (3rd Cir. 1998). “She argues that because Congress invalidated yellow dog contracts in the Norris-LaGuardia Act of 1932, 29 U.S.C. § 103 , this court should invalidate her contract.”

Totten v. Kellogg Brown & Root, LLC, 152 F. Supp. 3d 1243 (C.D. Cal. 2016). “” 29 U.S.C. § 103 . Section 4 identifies activities not subject, to restraining orders or injunctions — whether undertaken “singly or in concert” — including “[b]y all.”

Ryan v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., 924 F. Supp. 2d 559 (S.D.N.Y. 2013). “See 29 U.S.C. § 103 (a), (b); Morvant v. P.F.”

Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Hay Assocs., 545 F. Supp. 1064 (E.D. Pa. 1982). “§ 2000e (1976), and the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 103 (1976 & Supp. IV 1980), of which the Equal Pay Act is a part.”

Retail Clerks Union Local 1222, Afl-Cio v. Alfred M. Lewis, Inc., 327 F.2d 442 (9th Cir. 1964). “2d 513 that the purpose of Norris-LaGuardia was to protect only employees and unions, except for two isolated exceptions appearing in section 3(a, b), ( 29 U.S.C. § 103 (a, b)), and in section 4(b), ( 29 U.”

Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, Local Union 112, Afl-Cio, & Fischbach/lord Elec. Co., 827 F.2d 530 (9th Cir. 1987). “See 29 U.S.C. § 103 (1982). Here, except in those instances where the signing was coerced and involuntary, the employee simply was requesting voluntarily to be among those laid off when a reduction of force was required.”

Bell v. Chase Manhattan Bank Ex Rel. Chase Manhattan Bank, 40 F. Supp. 2d 307 (D.V.I. 1999). “29 U.S.C.A. § 103 . Black's Law Dictionary 1616 (6th Ed.”

Gerosa v. Savasta, 189 F. Supp. 2d 137 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). “§§ 103(a)(3)(A), (a)(4)(A), 29 U.S.C. §§ 103 (a)(3)(A), (a)(4)(A). As to the “enrolled actuary,” the opinion to be contained in the Annual Report is to the effect that the matters reported on “are in the aggregate reasonably related to the experience of the plan and to…”

Davis v. Henry, 555 So. 2d 457 (La. 1990). “23:823 and its federal counterpart, 29 U.S.C. § 103 , provide that contracts whereby employees promise not to join a union are contrary to public policy and "shall not afford any basis for the granting of legal or equitable relief .”

Iskanian v. CLS Transp. Los Angeles, LLC, 327 P.3d 129 (Cal. 2014). · cites it 4× “( 29 U.S.C. § 103 .) 4 Three years later, Congress expanded on these proscriptions in the National Labor Relations Act (commonly known as the Wagner Act after its author, Sen.”

Show all 18 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.