29 U.S.C. § 261

Applicability of “area of production” regulations

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 29 CasesGoogle Scholar

No employer shall be subject to any liability or punishment under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended [29 U.S.C. 201 et seq.], on account of the failure of such employer to pay an employee minimum wages, or to pay an employee overtime compensation, for or on account of an activity engaged in by such employee prior to December 26, 1946, if such employer—(1) was not so subject by reason of the definition of an “area of production”, by a regulation of the Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor, which regulation was applicable at the time of performance of the activity even though at that time the regulation was invalid; or(2) would not have been so subject if the regulation signed on December 18, 1946 (Federal Register, Vol. 11, p. 14648) had been in force on and after October 24, 1938.(May 14, 1947, ch. 52, § 12, 61 Stat. 89.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended, referred to in text, is act June 25, 1938, ch. 676, 52 Stat. 1060, as amended, which is classified generally to chapter 8 (§ 201 et seq.) of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see section 201 of this title and Tables.

Executive DocumentsTransfer of Functions

For transfer of functions of other officers, employees, and agencies of Department of Labor, with certain exceptions, to Secretary of Labor, with power to delegate, see Reorg. Plan No. 6, of 1950, §§ 1, 2, 15 F.R. 3174, 64 Stat. 1263, set out in the Appendix to Title 5, Government Organization and Employees.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 26 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1990–2023 · leading case: Penny Bachelder Mark Bachelder v. Am. West Airlines, Inc., 259 F.3d 1112 (9th Cir. 2001).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Penny Bachelder Mark Bachelder v. Am. West Airlines, Inc., 259 F.3d 1112 (9th Cir. 2001). “” 29 U.S.C. § 261 l(4)(A)(i). 3 . 29 U.S.C.”

Haybarger v. Lawrence Cnty. Adult Prob. & Parole, 667 F.3d 408 (3rd Cir. 2012). “29 U.S.C. § 261 l(4)(A)(i)-(iv) (emphasis added).”

Emmons v. City Univ. of New York, 715 F. Supp. 2d 394 (E.D.N.Y 2010). “The FMLA permits actions against an “employer,” which includes “any person who acts, directly or indirectly, in the interest of an employer to any of the employees of such employer,” 29 U.S.C. § 261 l(4)(A)(ii), and has been interpreted to “extend [ ] to all those who controlled…”

State v. Mikusch, 562 N.E.2d 168 (Ill. 1990). “) The defendants contend too that even if the appellate court was correct in concluding that the mandatory retirement of investigators of the Secretary of State pursuant to section 2— 115 was consistent with the Human Rights Act, the section cannot stand because it is in…”

Morrow v. Putnam, 142 F. Supp. 2d 1271 (D. Nev. 2001). “29 U.S.C. §§ 261 1(4)(A)(iii), 2611(4)(A)(ii)(I).”

Garner v. Chevron Phillips Chem. Co., 834 F. Supp. 2d 528 (S.D. Tex. 2011). “29 U.S.C. § 261 l(4)(A)(i). To be eligible for FMLA leave, an employee must have worked for the covered employee for at least 1250 hours during the last twelve months.”

Bellido-Sullivan v. Am. Int'l Grp., Inc., 123 F. Supp. 2d 161 (S.D.N.Y. 2000). “To make out a claim under the FMLA, Sullivan would need to demonstrate, among other things, that she worked the requisite number of hours during the previous twelve month period, see 29 U.”

Weth v. O'leary, 796 F. Supp. 2d 766 (E.D. Va. 2011). · cites it 2× “See 29 U.S.C. §§ 261 l(4)(A)(ii)(I) & (A)(iii).”

Deborah Phillis v. Harrisburg Sch Dist, 430 F. App'x 118 (3rd Cir. 2011). “” After receiving a collection of “right to sue” letters from the PHRC, Phillis filed her complaint in this case, alleging claims *121 under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 261 et seq. (“ADEA”); Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.”

Coker v. McFaul, 247 F. App'x 609 (6th Cir. 2007). “Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 261 1(2)(A)(i), an employee must be employed for at least twelve months by the employer in order to be eligible for FML.”

Muller v. Hotsy Corp., 917 F. Supp. 1389 (N.D. Iowa 1996). “” See 29 U.S.C. § 261 l(4)(A)(i). 12 . On September 7, 1995, Chief Magistrate Judge John A.”

Speziale v. Bethlehem Area Sch. Dist., 266 F. Supp. 2d 366 (E.D. Pa. 2003). “§ 1983 ; Count III, violation of anti-retaliation provisions of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, 29 U.S.C. § 261 (a)(1); and Count IV, violation of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.”

Show all 26 citing cases →

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.