29 U.S.C. § 1856
Waiver of rights
Agreements by employees purporting to waive or to modify their rights under this chapter shall be void as contrary to public policy, except that a waiver or modification of rights in favor of the Secretary shall be valid for purposes of enforcement of this chapter.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5
cases, 1986–2008 · leading case: Maldonado v. Lucca, 636 F. Supp. 621 (D.N.J. 1986).
Maldonado v. Lucca, 636 F. Supp. 621 (D.N.J. 1986). “The workers deserved their wages, regardless of whatever other claims they may have had. Defendants’ insistence that they waive future claims as a condition of receiving a check signifies a high degree of self-interest and a fundamental lack of good faith.”
De Leon-Granados v. Eller & Sons Trees, Inc., 581 F. Supp. 2d 1295 (N.D. Ga. 2008). “See 29 U.S.C. § 1856 ; see also Villalobos v.”
Gonsalez Moreno v. Milk Train, Inc., 182 F. Supp. 2d 590 (W.D. Tex. 2002). “” 29 U.S.C.A. § 1856 (West *597 1999). AWPA guarantees that employees shall have the right to file suit in “any district in the United States having jurisdiction of the parties .”
Villalobos v. North Carolina Growers Ass'n Inc., 252 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.P.R. 2002). “See 29 U.S.C. § 1856 . In light of these non-discretionary specifications, a defendant’s decision not to comply with the “in written form” requirement as to each such worker would inexorably result in a violation of AWPA.”
Recinos-Recinos v. Express Forestry, Inc., 233 F.R.D. 472 (E.D. La. 2006). “§ 1821 (d)(2); and (5) that defendants imposed a void term and condition of employment purporting to waive or modify plaintiffs’ rights under the AWPA pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1856 . *482 Plaintiffs’ AWPA claims contain issues of fact and law which are common to the named…”
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.