29 U.S.C. § 13

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

(a)(1) Assistance may not be paid under this Act to an employer on behalf of a veteran for any period of time described in paragraph (2) and to such veteran under chapter 31, 32, 34, 35, or 36 of title 38, United States Code, for the same period of time.“(2) A period of time referred to in paragraph (1) is the period of time beginning on the date on which the veteran enters into an approved program of job training of an employer for purposes of assistance under this Act and ending on the last date for which such assistance is payable.“(b) Assistance may not be paid under this Act to an employer on behalf of an eligible veteran for any period if the employer receives for that period any other form of assistance on account of the training or employment of the veteran, including assistance under title I of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 [former 29 U.S.C. 2801 et seq.] or a credit under section 44B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 ([former] 26 U.S.C. 44B) (relating to credit for employment of certain new employees).“(c) Assistance may not be paid under this Act on behalf of a veteran who has completed a program of job training under this Act.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 9 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1968–2023 · leading case: Chen v. Major League Baseball Props., Inc., 798 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 2015).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Chen v. Major League Baseball Props., Inc., 798 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 2015). “3d at 1192-93 (finding that where ski areas were separated by six miles “issues of business integration are not dispositive in determining whether establishments are separate” for purposes of amusement or recreational establishment under 29 U.S.C. § 13 (b)(29)); Mitchell v.…”

Chen v. Major League Baseball, 6 F. Supp. 3d 449 (S.D.N.Y. 2014). “The regulations relevant to the "amusement or recreational establishment” exemption were not promulgated pursuant to an express delegation of rulemaking authority by congress, see 29 U.S.C. § 13 (a)(3); cf. English v. Ecolab, Inc.”

Wirtz v. Campus Chefs, Inc., 303 F. Supp. 1112 (N.D. Ga. 1968). · cites it 2× “§ 213 (a) (20) (1961) and 29 U.S.C.A. § 13 (b) (18) (1966), employees of a retail or service establishment employed primarily in connection with the preparation or offering of food or beverages for human consumption.”

Reich v. Gateway Press, Inc., 13 F.3d 685 (3rd Cir. 1994). “” 29 U.S.C. § 13 (a)(1). The Department of Labor (“DOL”) regulations outline three types of professionals: “learned,” “artistic,” and “teachers.”

Barron v. Lee Enter., Inc., 183 F. Supp. 2d 1077 (C.D. Ill. 2002). “” 29 U.S.C. § 13 (a)(1); Piscione , 171 F.3d at *1085 533.”

James D. Hodgson, Sec'y of Labor, United States Dep't of Labor v. Odus Wittenburg, D/B/A Wittenburg Livestock Co., 464 F.2d 1219 (5th Cir. 1972). “29 U.S.C. § 13 (a)(6) (A). The judgment is reversed and remanded with further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

Xia v. New Yung Wah Carrier LLC (E.D.N.Y 2023). “Zheng further states that Plaintiffs are covered by the Motor Carrier Exemption to the overtime rules pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 13 (b)(1) because they were involved in making interstate deliveries.”

Louis-Charles v. Sun-Sentinel Co., 595 F. Supp. 2d 1304 (S.D. Fla. 2008). “See, 29 U.S.C. §§ 13 (a)(1), 13(b)(10)(a), (17); 29 C.”

Chen v. Major League Baseball Props., Inc. (2d Cir. 2015). “3d at 1192–93 (finding that where ski areas 6 were separated by six miles “issues of business integration are not dispositive in 7 determining whether establishments are separate” for purposes of amusement or 8 recreational establishment under 29 U.S.C. § 13 (b)(29)); Mitchell…”

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.