29 U.S.C. § 11
Bureau established
There shall be established in the Department of Labor a bureau to be known as the Women’s Bureau.
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).
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., No. 1:20-cv-03222 (D. Colo. Apr. 19, 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, No. 1:20-cv-03016 (D. Colo. Apr. 20, 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., No. 1:20-cv-03222 (D. Colo. Oct. 15, 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., No. 9:23-cv-80505 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 28, 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., No. 3:20-cv-01284 (S.D. Ill. June 27, 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., 548 F. Supp. 3d 513 (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, No. CV-95-305-M (D.N.H. Dec. 21, 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.