In any action or proceeding commenced prior to or on or after May 14, 1947 based on any act or omission prior to May 14, 1947, no employer shall be subject to any liability or punishment for or on account of the failure of the employer to pay minimum wages or overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended [29 U.S.C. 201 et seq.], the Walsh-Healey Act, or the Bacon-Davis Act,11 See References in Text note below. if he pleads and proves that the act or omission complained of was in good faith in conformity with and in reliance on any administrative regulation, order, ruling, approval, or interpretation, of any agency of the United States, or any administrative practice or enforcement policy of any such agency with respect to the class of employers to which he belonged. Such a defense, if established, shall be a bar to the action or proceeding, notwithstanding that after such act or omission, such administrative regulation, order, ruling, approval, interpretation, practice, or enforcement policy is modified or rescinded or is determined by judicial authority to be invalid or of no legal effect.
Notes of Decisions
Lawrence v. City of Philadelphia, Pa., 527 F.3d 299 (3rd Cir. 2008).
· cites it 2× “*320 § 255(a), [10] and the issue whether the City qualifies for a good faith defense, see 29 U.S.C. § 258 , [11] under the FLSA. It is important to note that if the City can show that it acted in good faith, it may not be subject to damages for its past overtime pay practice,…”
Kam Koon Wan v. E. E. Black, Ltd., 188 F.2d 558 (9th Cir. 1951).
· cites it 4× “88 , 29 U.S.C.A. § 258 , since defendant’s failure to pay overtime compensation required by the Fair Labor Standards Act during that period was “in good faith in conformity with and in reliance on” the orders of the Military Governor of Hawaii.”
Burke v. Mesta MacH. Co., 79 F. Supp. 588 (W.D. Pa. 1948).
· cites it 3× “, to be considered in the adjudication of the questions which exist are as follows: Section 9, 29 U.S.C.A. § 258— “In any action or proceeding commenced prior to or on or after May 14, 1947 based on any act or omission prior to May 14, 1947, no employer shall be subject to any…”
Ziparo v. CSX Transp., Inc., 15 F. 4th 153 (2d Cir. 2021).
“1953) (rejecting argument that “good faith” as used in 29 U.S.C. § 258 should be interpreted to include an objective reasonableness element).”
Henchy v. City of Absecon, 148 F. Supp. 2d 435 (D.N.J. 2001).
“29 U.S.C.A. §§ 258 , 259. Specifically, Defendants contend that, because Chief Mulvihill relied “on the action of the Department of Labor with their work in the Atlantic City K-9 settlement” (hereinafter “Settlement”) in drafting the Agreement, they should not be held liable for…”
James Olson v. Superior Pontiac-Gmc, Inc., 765 F.2d 1570 (11th Cir. 1985).
“See Portal to Portal Pay Act, 29 U.S.C. § 258 , 260. 12 The legislative history of the Portal to Portal Pay Act indicates that “good faith is intended to apply only where an employer innocently and to his detriment, followed the law as it was laid down to him by government…”
Dutcher v. Randall Foods, 546 N.W.2d 889 (Iowa 1996).
“, 29 U.S.C. §§ 258 , 259 (employer’s rebanee on past and future administrative rulings), section 260 merely provides that the employer “show” good faith and reasonable grounds.”
Winans v. W.A.S., Inc., 758 P.2d 503 (Wash. Ct. App. 1988).
· cites it 4× “1966); see also 29 U.S.C. § 258 . Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(c) requires a party to affirmatively plead any matter constituting an affirmative defense.”
Addison v. Huron Stevedoring Corp., 96 F. Supp. 142 (S.D.N.Y. 1950).
· cites it 2× “29 U.S.C.A. §§ 258 , 260. The tenth defense alleges that the defendants in paying the plaintiffs, did so in good faith in conformity with and in reliance on certain administrative regulations, orders, rulings, approvals, or interpretations of an *150 agency of the United States…”
Reich v. IBP, Inc., 820 F. Supp. 1315 (D. Kan. 1993).
“Back pay: Sections 9 and 10 of the Portal Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 258 , 259, expressly limit reliance on administrative rulings to written regulations, orders, rulings, approvals, or interpretations issued by the Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor.”
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.