29 U.S.C. § 1842
Confirmation of registration
No person shall utilize the services of any farm labor contractor to supply any migrant or seasonal agricultural worker unless the person first takes reasonable steps to determine that the farm labor contractor possesses a certificate of registration which is valid and which authorizes the activity for which the contractor is utilized. In making that determination, the person may rely upon either possession of a certificate of registration, or confirmation of such registration by the Department of Labor. The Secretary shall maintain a central public registry of all persons issued a certificate of registration.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 20
cases, 1984–2016 · leading case: Charles v. Burton, 169 F.3d 1322 (11th Cir. 1999).
Charles v. Burton, 169 F.3d 1322 (11th Cir. 1999). “PER CURIAM: The entire panel concurs in Parts I, II, and Part IV which discusses whether the appellees "utilized" Wilner Luxama's services, and Part V which holds that appellees John and Felix Burton may be held liable for actual damages for their failure to verify Luxama's…”
Saintida v. Tyre, L., 783 F. Supp. 1368 (S.D. Fla. 1992). “29 U.S.C. § 1842 . In addition to ensuring that each farm labor contractor has a certificate of registration, it must also be determined whether the contractor is authorized to transport agricultural workers, if the contractor will be used for this activity.”
Castillo v. Case Farms of Ohio, Inc., 96 F. Supp. 2d 578 (W.D. Tex. 1999). “Unregistered Farm Labor Contractors’ Alleged Violations of 29 U.S.C. § 1842 A. The Law B. 1996 Plaintiffs C.”
Saucedo v. John Hancock Life & Health Ins. Co., 369 P.3d 150 (Wash. 2016). “On this point, we note that the FLCA’s federal analog, the agricultural worker protection act (AWPA), contains a “[c]onfirmation of [registration” provision, 29 U.S.C. § 1842 , very similar to RCW 19.”
Howard v. Malcolm, 852 F.2d 101 (4th Cir. 1988). “§ 1802 (2) and (5), 1 and that pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1842 , 2 Malcolm had sufficiently verified the labor contractor’s housing authorization card.”
Avila v. A. Sam & Sons, 856 F. Supp. 763 (W.D.N.Y. 1994). “” 29 U.S.C. § 1842 . Here, the proof shows that farm labor contractor Isaac possessed a certificate of registration as a farm labor contractor, but it had expired on June 30, 1987.”
Ricketts v. Vann, 32 F.3d 71 (4th Cir. 1994). “Third, Ricketts alleged violations of 29 U.S.C.A. § 1842 , for the Vanns’ and the Bunches’ failure to determine whether the Flakes possessed a valid certificate of registration which authorized the Flakes to transport farm workers.”
Leach v. Johnston, 812 F. Supp. 1198 (M.D. Fla. 1992). “29 U.S.C. § 1842 . Plaintiffs allege that Johnston failed to meet the statutory requirement *1209 when he used Alexander to transport the crew during the time period indicated above.”
Escobar v. Baker, 814 F. Supp. 1491 (W.D. Wash. 1993). “See 29 U.S.C. § 1842 , RCW 19.30.200. In determining whether Hipólito Soto was a farm labor contractor under the AWPA and FLCA, the Court must determine (1) whether he performed any farm labor contracting activity, (2) for a fee.”
Metzler v. Lykes Pasco, Inc., 972 F. Supp. 1438 (S.D. Fla. 1997). “Section 402 of the act (codified at 29 U.S.C. § 1842 and closely mirrored by the language of 29 C.”
Sanchez v. Overmyer, 891 F. Supp. 1253 (N.D. Ohio 1995). “As the Court has determined that Gomez did not “control” the housing at the Overmyer camp, the Overmyers did not violate 29 U.S.C. § 1842 in utilizing her services at the labor camp.”
Linkstrom v. Golden T. Farms, 883 F.2d 269 (3rd Cir. 1989). “We have reviewed and found without merit appellant’s claims that: (1) the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to admit testimony from a Pennsylvania state trooper on the position of the victim before the accident and the course of the truck; (2) the trial court erred…”
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.