29 U.S.C. § 217
Injunction proceedings
The district courts, together with the United States District Court for the District of the Canal Zone, the District Court of the Virgin Islands, and the District Court of Guam shall have jurisdiction, for cause shown, to restrain violations of section 215 of this title, including in the case of violations of section 215(a)(2) of this title the restraint of any withholding of payment of minimum wages or overtime compensation found by the court to be due to employees under this chapter (except sums which employees are barred from recovering, at the time of the commencement of the action to restrain the violations, by virtue of the provisions of section 255 of this title).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 599
cases (68 in the last 5 years), 1940–2026 · leading case: Mitchell v. Robert DeMario Jewelry, Inc.
Mitchell v. Robert DeMario Jewelry, Inc. (1960)
“1069 , as amended, 29 U. S. C. § 217 , the District Courts are given jurisdiction "for cause shown, to restrain violations of section 15: [1] Provided, That no court shall have jurisdiction, in any action brought by the Secretary of Labor to restrain such violations, to order…”
Josendis v. Wall to Wall Residence Repairs, Inc. (2011)
“12 The district court had jurisdiction over Count I pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 217 .”
Mohammad Jahir v. Ryman Hospitality Properties (2015)
“3d at 1284 (rejecting a pure gap time 6 The Secretary of Labor is empowered to bring an action for unpaid wages under § 216(b) and an action to restrain violations of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 217 .”
Mitchell v. Lublin, McGaughy & Associates (1959)
“Petitioner, the Secretary of Labor, brought this action under § 17 of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U. S. C. § 217 , [1] to restrain respondent [2] from violating the record-keeping and overtime provisions of the Act.”
Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo (1982)
“1069 , as amended, 29 U. S. C. § 217 (1958 ed.). The Court simultaneously noted that `the statutory purposes [leave] little room for the exercise of discretion not to order reimbursement.”
Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority (1985)
“The Secretary counterclaimed under 29 U. S. C. § 217 for enforcement of the overtime and recordkeeping requirements of the FLSA.”
United States v. Philip Morris USA Inc. (2005)
“">Mitchell , the second Supreme Court decision the government relies on, considered whether district courts could order restitution of wages lost from unlawful discharge in suits brought by the Secretary of Labor under section 17 of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C.…”
Landry v. Swire Oilfield Services, L.L.C. (2017)
“§ 216 (c); and (v) a suit for injunctive relief, see 29 U.S.C. § 217 . “The principal congressional purpose in enacting the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 was to protect all covered workers from substandard wages and oppressive working hours, ‘labor conditions [that are]…”
Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody (1975)
“1069 , as amended, 29 U. S. C. § 217 (1958 ed.) The Court simultaneously noted that "the statutory purposes [leave] little room for the exercise of discretion not to order reimbursement.”
Raymond J. Donovan, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor v. Brown Equipment and Service Tools, Inc. (1982)
“Framed to comport with the traditional role of an injunction, section 17 of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 217 , 9 authorizes the Secretary to sue to enjoin an employer from withholding the payment of minimum wages or overtime compensation found by the court to be due to employees.”
Bustillos v. Board of County Commissioners (2016)
“§ 216 (e); and (v) a suit for injunctive relief, see 29 U.S.C. § 217 . “The principal congressional purpose in enacting the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 was to protect all covered workers from substandard wages and oppressive working hours, ‘labor conditions [that are]…”
Chao v. Virginia Department of Transportation (2001)
“Chao, United States Secretary of Labor, 1 seeks relief against the Defendant, the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), to enjoin violations of sections 7, 11(c), 15(a)(2), and 15(a)(5) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) under section 17, 29 U.S.C. § 217 .…”
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.