U.S. Code » Title 29 » Chapter CHAPTER 32— WORKFORCE INNOVATION AND OPPORTUNITY › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER I— WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES › Part Part B— Workforce Investment Activities and Providers › Subpart subpart 3— adult and dislocated worker employment and training activities

29 U.S.C. § 11

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 29 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) If the Administrator finds at any time that a program of job training previously approved by the Administrator for the purposes of this Act thereafter fails to meet any of the requirements established under this Act, the Administrator may immediately disapprove further participation by veterans in that program. The Administrator shall provide to the employer concerned, and to each veteran participating in the employer’s program, a statement of the reasons for, and an opportunity for a hearing with respect to, such disapproval. The employer and each such veteran shall be notified of such disapproval, the reasons for such disapproval, and the opportunity for a hearing. Notification shall be by a certified or registered letter, and a return receipt shall be secured.“(b)(1) If the Administrator determines that the rate of veterans’ successful completion of an employer’s programs of job training previously approved by the Administrator for the purposes of this Act is disproportionately low because of deficiencies in the quality of such programs, the Administrator shall disapprove participation in such programs on the part of veterans who had not begun such participation on the date that the employer is notified of the disapproval. In determining whether any such rate is disproportionately low because of such deficiencies, the Administrator shall take into account appropriate data, including—“(A) the quarterly data provided by the Secretary with respect to the number of veterans who receive counseling in connection with training under this Act, are referred to employers under this Act, participate in job training under this Act, complete such training or do not complete such training, and the reasons for noncompletion; and“(B) data compiled through the particular employer’s compliance surveys.“(2) With respect to a disapproval under paragraph (1), the Administrator shall provide to the employer concerned the kind of statement, opportunity for hearing, and notice described in subsection (a).“(3) A disapproval under paragraph (1) shall remain in effect until such time as the Administrator determines that adequate remedial action has been taken.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1995–2024 · leading case: Carner v. MGS-576 5th Ave. Inc., 992 F. Supp. 340 (S.D.N.Y. 1998).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Carner v. MGS-576 5th Ave. Inc., 992 F. Supp. 340 (S.D.N.Y. 1998). “” 29 U.S.C. § 11 '62(2)(A)(I). 24 . In a letter from Blue Cross to Bach, plaintiffs attorney, Blue Cross writes: Pursuant to the telephone conversation of March 16, 1995 between you, myself and Charles Ryan, Esq.”
Colutions LLC v. Ventura Seed Co. LLC (D. Colo. 2021). “It is undisputed that Defendant now owes Plaintiff roughly $875,000, and Plaintiff’s efforts to confirm the arbitration have been halted through no fault of its own.”
UniFirst Corp. v. Heat Depot, LLC, The (D. Colo. 2021). “at 1191 (holding that 29 U.S.C. § 11 (a) does not permit a court to go beyond the face of the arbitration award in looking for an evident material miscalculation).”
Colutions LLC v. Ventura Seed Co. LLC (D. Colo. 2021). “2020), for the proposition that 29 U.S.C. § 11 (a) does not permit a court to go beyond the face of the arbitration award in looking for an evident material miscalculation).”
Su v. Medi-Wheels of the Palm Beaches, Inc. (S.D. Fla. 2024). “It has done so by using the software that the Defendant used to 13 29 U.S.C. §§ 11 (c), 15(a)(5), 211(c), 215(a)(5).”
Scalia v. Saline Cnty. Ambulance Serv., Inc. (S.D. Ill. 2022). “The motion is GRANTED as to (1) DOL’s claims pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §§ 11 (c) and 15(a)(5); (2) DOL’s claims pursuant to 29 U.”
Walsh v. Fusion Japanese Steakhouse, Inc. (W.D. Pa. 2021). “Therefore, no reasonable jury could conclude that Defendants met their obligations under 29 U.S.C. § 11 (c) and the Court will enter summary judgment in Plaintiff’s favor on this issue.”
Gartman v. Coutu (D.N.H. 1995). “29 U.S.C. §11 3 2 (a)(1)(B). And, as noted above, it is also possible that plaintiff is attempting to bring a claim under ERISA against one (or both) of the defendants on a theory of promissory estoppel.”
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.