29 U.S.C. § 2
The purpose of this Act is to address the problem of severe and continuing unemployment among veterans by providing, in the form of payments to defray the costs of training, incentives to employers to hire and train certain wartime veterans who have been unemployed for long periods of time for stable and permanent positions that involve significant training.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 25
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1977–2022 · leading case: E. Air Lines, Inc. v. Dept. of Revenue, 455 So. 2d 311 (Fla. 1984).
E. Air Lines, Inc. v. Dept. of Revenue, 455 So. 2d 311 (Fla. 1984). “The Consumer Price Index referred to in the law is authorized by 29 U.S.C. §§ 2 , 2a and 2b (1976). Under these code provisions, the Secretary of Labor has broad powers to collect, collate and report statistics, and, to that end, has the power to use bureaus provided for the…”
Azcao Carrillo v. Dandan, Inc., 51 F. Supp. 3d 124 (D.D.C. 2014). “The O’Neil Court cautioned that its decision had “not necessitated a determination of what limitation, if any, [ 29 U.S.C. § 2 ] 16(b) of the [FLSA] places on the validity of agreements between an employer and employee to settle claims arising under the [FLSA] if the settlement…”
Mars Home for Youth v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 666 F.3d 850 (3rd Cir. 2011). “To be entitled to the Act’s protections and includable in a bargaining unit, one must be an “employee” as defined by the Act See 29 U.S.C. §§ 2 (3), 152(3); see also NLRB v.”
Lepore v. Lanvision Sys., Inc., 113 F. App'x 449 (3rd Cir. 2004). “Like the District Court below, we need not address LanVision’s contention that the FMLA is inapplicable under 29 U.S.C. § 2 611 (2) (B) (ii) (FMLA does not cover an employee who is employed at a worksite at which the employer employs less than 50 employees if the total number of…”
Hunt v. State, 252 N.W.2d 715 (Iowa 1977). “29 U.S.C. § 2 . Numerous federal statutory provisions use the consumer price index either to determine eligibility or calculate the amount of benefits.”
Chao v. Hosp. Staffing Servs. Inc., 270 F.3d 374 (6th Cir. 2001). “8 The Court agreed that Congress wanted to improve working conditions, but it found additional public policy goals delineated in 29 U.S.C. § 2 (a), which “reflects Congress’ desire to eliminate the competitive advantage enjoyed by goods produced under substandard conditions.”
Thomas v. Grand Lodge of Int'l Ass'n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, 40 F. Supp. 2d 737 (D. Maryland 1999). “29 U.S.C. §§ 2 , 413. When it became apparent that Land-rum-Griffin would become law, the IAM undertook to comply with § 105 by publishing the entire text of the Act in The Machinist, its weekly publication of that era, sending the publication to all its members.”
Determination of an Appropriate Unit & Certification as Exclusive Rep. Serv. Employees Int'l Union, Local 284 v. Univ. of Minnesota, Unit 8, 902 N.W.2d 54 (Minn. Ct. App. 2017). “In 1980, the United States Supreme Court held that the level of discretion and autonomy enjoyed by faculty at private universities removed them from the definition of employees in the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.”
Atl. City Elec. Co v. NLRB (3rd Cir. 2021). “2011) (citing 29 U.S.C. §§ 2 (3), 152(3)). 5 The Company petitioned for review of the Regional Director’s decision.”
Dixon v. Nat'l Hot Rod Ass'n (S.D. Ind. 2020). “§ 1 ; (2) that Defendant mo- nopolized or attempted to monopolize the relevant markets in violation of the Sher- man Act, 29 U.S.C. § 2 ; (3) that Defendant conspired to monopolize the relevant mar- kets in violation of the Sherman Act and the Cartwright Act, Cal.”
Council of Unit Owners of Ellicott Hills Condo. II, Inc. v. The Cincinnati Ins. Co. (D. Maryland 2022). “2019) (holding the FAA applied to a clause requiring appraisal and out-of-court dispute resolution in a case involving commercial insurance and ‘fire damage),? and that the FAA establishes a “national policy favoring arbitration when the parties contract for that mode of 29…”
Saulsberry v. Savannah River Remediation, LLC (D.S.C. 2020). “1995) (finding that, in a case under 29 U.S.C. § 2 (d)(1), injunctive relief was inappropriate because plaintiff was no longer employed by the defendant); see also McCaskill v.”
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.