29 U.S.C. § 1168
Regulations
The Secretary may prescribe regulations to carry out the provisions of this part.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8
cases, 1993–2018 · leading case: David & Carolyn Gaskell v. The Harvard Coop. Soc'y, David & Carolyn Gaskell v. The Harvard Coop. Soc'y, 3 F.3d 495 (1st Cir. 1993).
David & Carolyn Gaskell v. The Harvard Coop. Soc'y, David & Carolyn Gaskell v. The Harvard Coop. Soc'y, 3 F.3d 495 (1st Cir. 1993). “[termination or reduction in hours] ivhich, but for the continuation coverage required under this part, ivould result in the loss of coverage of a qualified beneficiary_” 29 U.S.C. § 1168 (emphasis added). As the district court noted, see 762 F.”
Katie Mayes v. Winco Holdings, Inc., 846 F.3d 1274 (9th Cir. 2017). “” See 29 U.S.C. § 1168 (2). As discussed, Mayes presented both direct and indirect evidence that the reasons stated for her termination were pretextual, and we conclude there is a genuine dispute of material fact regarding the true reason for her termination.”
David Hager v. Todd G. Rowan, 903 F.3d 460 (5th Cir. 2018). “606-4 (b) ; see 29 U.S.C. § 1168 . These notice requirements apply to "qualified beneficiaries," which includes an employee who is terminated, so the notice requirements of 29 C.”
Pens. Plan Guide P 23923p Eileen D. Mlsna v. Unitel Commc'ns, Inc., 91 F.3d 876 (7th Cir. 1996). “And I believe that is where the gross misconduct issue starts in this case and ends, with Mr. Mallin’s suspicions and not very much proof.”
Bryant v. Food Lion, Inc., 100 F. Supp. 2d 346 (D.S.C. 2000). “death, divorce), but only one is applicable to the plaintiffs in this case: (2) the termination (other than by reason of such employee’s gross misconduct), or reduction of hours, of the covered employee’s employment; 29 U.S.C.A. § 1168 (2). Coverage may end for a number of other…”
Moore v. Williams Coll., 702 F. Supp. 2d 19 (D. Mass. 2010). “29 U.S.C. § 1168 (2). Defendant’s November 12, 2009 letter terminating Plaintiffs employment provided four reasons for termination: 1.”
Burgess v. Adams Tool & Eng'g, Inc., 908 F. Supp. 473 (W.D. Mich. 1995). “29 U.S.C. § 1168 ; 26 U.S.C. § 4980B(f)(3).”
Draper v. Baker Hughes Inc., 892 F. Supp. 1287 (E.D. Cal. 1995). “29 U.S.C. § 1168 . However, to date 'only the Department of the Treasury has issued proposed regulations, and these have not become final.”
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.