U.S. Code » Title 29 » Chapter CHAPTER 8— FAIR LABOR STANDARDS

29 U.S.C. § 218

Relation to other laws

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 29 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) No provision of this chapter or of any order thereunder shall excuse noncompliance with any Federal or State law or municipal ordinance establishing a minimum wage higher than the minimum wage established under this chapter or a maximum work week lower than the maximum workweek established under this chapter, and no provision of this chapter relating to the employment of child labor shall justify noncompliance with any Federal or State law or municipal ordinance establishing a higher standard than the standard established under this chapter. No provision of this chapter shall justify any employer in reducing a wage paid by him which is in excess of the applicable minimum wage under this chapter, or justify any employer in increasing hours of employment maintained by him which are shorter than the maximum hours applicable under this chapter.(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter (other than section 213(f) of this title) or any other law—(1) any Federal employee in the Canal Zone engaged in employment of the kind described in section 5102(c)(7) of title 5, or(2) any employee employed in a nonappropriated fund instrumentality under the jurisdiction of the Armed Forces,shall have his basic compensation fixed or adjusted at a wage rate that is not less than the appropriate wage rate provided for in section 206(a)(1) of this title (except that the wage rate provided for in section 206(b) of this title shall apply to any employee who performed services during the workweek in a work place within the Canal Zone), and shall have his overtime compensation set at an hourly rate not less than the overtime rate provided for in section 207(a)(1) of this title.(June 25, 1938, ch. 676, § 18, 52 Stat. 1069; Pub. L. 89–601, title III, § 306, Sept. 23, 1966, 80 Stat. 841; Pub. L. 90–83, § 8, Sept. 11, 1967, 81 Stat. 222.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

For definition of Canal Zone, referred to in subsec. (b), see section 3602(b) of Title 22, Foreign Relations and Intercourse.

Amendments

1967—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 90–83 substituted reference to section 5102(c)(7) of title 5 for reference to par. (7) of section 202 of the Classification Act of 1949 to reflect the amendment of section 5341(a) of title 5 by section 1(97) of Pub. L. 90–83 and struck out provision covering employees described in section 7474 of title 10 in view of the repeal of section 7474 of title 10 by Pub. L. 89–554.

1966—Pub. L. 89–601 designated existing provisions as subsec. (a) and added subsec. (b).

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1966 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 89–601 effective Feb. 1, 1967, except as otherwise provided, see section 602 of Pub. L. 89–601, set out as a note under section 203 of this title.

Rules, Regulations, and Orders Promulgated With Regard to 1966 Amendments

Secretary authorized to promulgate necessary rules, regulations, or orders on and after the date of the enactment of Pub. L. 89–601, Sept. 23, 1966, with regard to the amendments made by Pub. L. 89–601, see section 602 of Pub. L. 89–601, set out as a note under section 203 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 286 cases (74 in the last 5 years), 1940–2026 · leading case: Bouaphakeo v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 564 F. Supp. 2d 870 (N.D. Iowa 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Bouaphakeo v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 564 F. Supp. 2d 870 (N.D. Iowa 2008). · cites it 4× “29 U.S.C. § 218 (a). Moreover, Tyson does not specifically argue express or field preemption applies.”
Webster v. Bechtel, Inc., 621 P.2d 890 (Alaska 1980). · cites it 6× “§ 218 (a) (West 1975) provides: No provision of this chapter or of any order thereunder shall excuse noncompliance with any Federal or State law or municipal ordinance establishing a minimum wage higher than the minimum wage established under this chapter or a maximum workweek…”
Wage Claims of Stewart v. Region II Child & Fam. Servs., 788 P.2d 913 (Mont. 1990). · cites it 7× “29 U.S.C. § 218 (a). The District Court reasoned that since the claims are barred by the P.”
Capron v. Massachusetts Attorney Gen., 944 F.3d 9 (1st Cir. 2019). · cites it 2× “29 U.S.C. § 218 (a). It provides that "[n]o provision of this chapter or of any order thereunder shall excuse noncompliance with any Federal or State - 16 - law or municipal ordinance establishing a minimum wage higher than the minimum wage established under this chapter.”
Parker Drilling Mgmt. Servs., Ltd. v. Newton, 139 S. Ct. 1881 (2019). “, at 1097 (citing 29 U.S.C. § 218 (a) ). Given the disagreement between the Fifth and Ninth Circuits, we granted *1887 certiorari.”
Rochell Mitchell v. JCG Indus., 745 F.3d 837 (7th Cir. 2014). · cites it 3× “29 U.S.C. § 218 (a); see Spo‐ erle v. Kraft Foods Global, Inc.”
Philip Williamson Itzik Riefronda Kirlin Thomas Painter,plaintiffs-Appellants v. Gen. Dynamics Corp.,opinion, 208 F.3d 1144 (9th Cir. 2000). · cites it 2× “See 29 U.S.C. § 218 (a). 1 *1151 c. Anti-Retaliation Provision Finally, the FLSA contains an “anti-retaliation provision” that prohibits employers from retaliating against employees for filing complaints about violations of the Act.”
Smith v. Batchelor, 832 P.2d 467 (Utah 1992). · cites it 4× “See 29 U.S.C. § 218 ; Maccabees Mut. Life Ins.”
Thomas Killion v. KeHE Distributors, 761 F.3d 574 (6th Cir. 2014). · cites it 2× “But KeHE does not pay the plaintiffs overtime because it classifies its sales representatives as exempt from the overtime requirements of the FLSA under the “outside sales employee” exemption, 29 U.S.C. § 218 (a)(1). On February 17, 2012, KeHE discharged 69 sales representatives…”
Jorge Amaya v. Power Design, Inc., 833 F.3d 440 (4th Cir. 2016). · cites it 3× “The Court then noted—as shown by the FLSA’s “Relation to Other Laws” provision, 29 U.S.C. § 218—Congress’ “awareness that the coverage of the [FLSA] overlaps that of other federal legislation affecting labor standards,” including the Walsh-Healey Act.”
Angel M. Cosme Nieves v. Col. Robert C. Deshler, Etc., 786 F.2d 445 (1st Cir. 1986). · cites it 3× “Each plaintiff seeks from FBICS damages in excess of $10,000 for failure to have paid proper wages and overtime, in alleged violation of section 18 of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 218 (1982), and also of certain supposedly more beneficial provisions of the laws of Puerto Rico, P.”
Shahriar v. Smith & Wollensky Restaurant Grp., Inc., 659 F.3d 234 (2d Cir. 2011). “” 29 U.S.C. § 218 (a) (2006). We have held that this clause demonstrates Congress’ intent to allow state wage laws to co-exist with the FLSA by permitting explicitly, for example, states to mandate greater overtime benefits than the FLSA.”
Show all 286 citing cases →
— 29 U.S.C. § 218(a) — 1 case
Hooper v. State, 295 F. Supp. 3d 726 (S.D. Miss. 2017).
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.