29 U.S.C. § 219
Separability
If any provision of this chapter or the application of such provision to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of this chapter and the application of such provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 25
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1967–2026 · leading case: Hamm v. S. Ohio Med. Ctr., 275 F. Supp. 3d 863 (S.D. Ohio 2017).
Hamm v. S. Ohio Med. Ctr., 275 F. Supp. 3d 863 (S.D. Ohio 2017). “” 29 U.S.C. § 219 (b). Accordingly, on September 27, 2019, Plaintiff filed the Motion for Conditional Certification, which asks the Court to certify this case as a collective action and for authorization to send notice of Plaintiffs FLSA claims to “All current and former…”
Carol A. Timmer v. Michigan Dep't of Com. & Michigan Dep't of Civil Serv., United States of Am., Intervenor, 104 F.3d 833 (6th Cir. 1997). “29 U.S.C. § 219 . Therefore, it does not control our decision that this Court has held that the FLSA’s minimum wage and maximum hour provisions are unconstitutional as applied to the States.”
W. J. Usery, Jr., Sec'y of Labor, United States Dep't of Labor v. Allegheny Cnty. Inst. Dist. D/B/A John J. Kane Hosp., 544 F.2d 148 (3rd Cir. 1976). “29 U.S.C. § 219 (1970 ed.) 11 . Our conclusion that the Equal Pay Act of 1963 was unaffected by the decision in National League of Cities et al.”
Lockard v. Equifax, Inc., 163 F.3d 1259 (11th Cir. 1998). “29 U.S.C. § 219 (1970). 9 . Compare Johnson v.”
Jimmy Allen Alewine v. City Council of Augusta, Georgia, C.D. Joiner, on Behalf of Himself & Others Similarly Situated v. City of MacOn, 699 F.2d 1060 (11th Cir. 1983). “” 29 U.S.C.A. § 219 (1975). Therefore, no congressional re-enactment is necessary for a constitutionally valid application of the FLSA’s overtime provisions to the public employees involved in these cases.”
Haun v. Retail Credit Co., 420 F. Supp. 859 (W.D. Pa. 1976). “1974), the district court relied on cases interpreting similar language in the Fair Labor *862 Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 219 (1970) [hereinafter FLSA] as a removal prohibition and thus held FCRA cases nonremovable.”
Employees of the Dep't of Pub. Health & Welfare, State of Missouri v. Dep't of Pub. Health & Welfare, State of Missouri, 452 F.2d 820 (8th Cir. 1972). “Particularly in light of the Act’s ‘separability’ provision, 29 U.S.C. § 219 , we see no reason to strike down otherwise valid portions of the Act simply because other portions might not be constitutional as applied to hypothetical future cases.”
Iris I. Varner, & United States of Am., Intervenor-Appellee v. Illinois State Univ., 150 F.3d 706 (7th Cir. 1998). “*714 The Equal Pay Act, which Congress designated as severable from the other protections of the FLSA, see 29 U.S.C. § 219 , is mentioned only once in the Senate Committee’s 116-page report, in a discussion of the FLSA’s historical background.”
Ray Marshall (Successor to W. J. Usery), Sec'y of Labor, United States Dep't of Labor v. Owensboro-Daviess Cnty. Hosp., 581 F.2d 116 (6th Cir. 1978). “Finally, we note that the EPA is subject to the broad severability clause of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 219 . For the foregoing reasons the judgment of the District Court is reversed, and the case is remanded for proceedings consistent with our prior decision, Brennan v.”
Ray Marshall (Successor to W. J. Usery, Jr.), Sec'y of Labor, United States Dep't of Labor v. City of Sheboygan, a Mun. Corp., 577 F.2d 1 (7th Cir. 1978). “29 U.S.C. § 219 (emphasis added). The normal presumption of divisibility created by such a provision 14 is even stronger here since, as noted above, the equal pay provision has a different legislative history and effects a different policy than the minimum wage and overtime…”
Nat'l League of Cities v. Marshall, 429 F. Supp. 703 (D.D.C. 1977). “Moreover, even if it were considered as a more conventional amendment to the FLSA, the court gave decisional effect to the FLSA’s separability clause, 29 U.S.C. § 219 . Finally, the court upheld the constitutionality of the Equal Pay Act’s prohibition of wage discrimination on…”
State of Maryland v. Wirtz, 269 F. Supp. 826 (D. Maryland 1967). “§ 216 and the separability language in 29 U.S.C.A. § 219 . Maryland and Texas also argue that their schools and hospitals are the "ultimate consumers" of commodities purchased from out-of-state, that such commodities are not "goods" as defined by 29 U.”
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.