29 U.S.C. § 2106
Procedures encouraged where not required
It is the sense of Congress that an employer who is not required to comply with the notice requirements of section 2102 of this title should, to the extent possible, provide notice to its employees about a proposal to close a plant or permanently reduce its workforce.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8
cases, 1991–2018 · leading case: Collins v. Gee West Seattle LLC, 631 F.3d 1001 (9th Cir. 2011).
Collins v. Gee West Seattle LLC, 631 F.3d 1001 (9th Cir. 2011). “It also comports with Congress's intent that advance notice be voluntarily given even if the employer is not required to comply with the statute, 29 U.S.C. § 2106 , and with Congress's desire that employers not attempt to resort to slight of hand to "evade the requirements of…”
William Hanes v. David Dormire, Superintendent, 240 F.3d 694 (8th Cir. 2001). “Said decision then could then be fairly and properly considered.”
Cashman v. Dolce Int'l/Hartford, Inc., 225 F.R.D. 73 (D. Conn. 2004). “See 29 U.S.C. § 2106 (“Procedures encouraged where not required.”
Local 217 Hotel & Restaurant Employees Union v. MHM, Inc., 805 F. Supp. 93 (D. Conn. 1991). “3 (a)(2), the literal “show stopper” here was Colonial Realty, whose principals decided in late July or early August 1990 to close the Summit Hotel as of August 10, 1990. While the WARN statute is remedial in nature and compliance with its procedures is to be encouraged even…”
Oil, Chem. & Atomic Workers Int'l Union, Local 7-629, Afl-Cio v. Rmi Titanium Co., 199 F.3d 881 (6th Cir. 2000). “See 29 U.S.C. § 2106 (“It is the sense of Congress that an employer who is not required to comply with the notice requirements of section 2102 of this title should, to the extent possible, provide notice to its employees about a proposal to close a plant or permanently reduce…”
James v. Truland Grp., Inc. (In re Truland Grp., Inc.), 520 B.R. 197 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 2014). “See also 29 U.S.C. § 2106 (“It is the sense of Congress that an employer who is not required to comply with the notice requirements of Section 2102 of this title should, to the extent possible, provide notice to its employees about a proposal to close a plant or permanently…”
Richard Wally Rose v. United States (11th Cir. 2018). “Under 29 U.S.C. § 2106 , the panel was free to limit the remand proceedings as it thought “just.”
William Hanes v. David Dormire (8th Cir. 2001). “This would certainly be proper under 29 U.S.C. §2106 which permits appellate courts to “require such further proceedings to be had as may be just under the circumstances.”
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.