29 U.S.C. § 2616

Investigative authority

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

(a) In general

To ensure compliance with the provisions of this subchapter, or any regulation or order issued under this subchapter, the Secretary shall have, subject to subsection (c), the investigative authority provided under section 211(a) of this title.

(b) Obligation to keep and preserve records

Any employer shall make, keep, and preserve records pertaining to compliance with this subchapter in accordance with section 211(c) of this title and in accordance with regulations issued by the Secretary.

The Secretary shall not under the authority of this section require any employer or any plan, fund, or program to submit to the Secretary any books or records more than once during any 12-month period, unless the Secretary has reasonable cause to believe there may exist a violation of this subchapter or any regulation or order issued pursuant to this subchapter, or is investigating a charge pursuant to section 2617(b) of this title.

(d) Subpoena powers

For the purposes of any investigation provided for in this section, the Secretary shall have the subpoena authority provided for under section 209 of this title.

(Pub. L. 103–3, title I, § 106, Feb. 5, 1993, 107 Stat. 15.)Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date

Section effective 6 months after Feb. 5, 1993, except that, in the case of collective bargaining agreements in effect on that effective date, section applicable on the earlier of (1) the date of termination of such agreement, or (2) the date that occurs 12 months after Feb. 5, 1993, see section 405(b) of Pub. L. 103–3, set out as a note under section 2601 of this title.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 12 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1997–2026 · leading case: Ragsdale v. Wolverine World Wide, Inc., 535 U.S. 81 (2002).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Ragsdale v. Wolverine World Wide, Inc., 535 U.S. 81 (2002). · cites it 2× “29 U. S. C. § 2616 (b). At most, the regulation moves up the time of this designation.”

William Tennial v. United Parcel Serv., 840 F.3d 292 (6th Cir. 2016). “Finally, Tennial alleged that the defendants interfered with his medical leave and retaliated against him, in violation of the FMLA, 29 U.S.C. § 2616 . UPS, Cochran, and Slabaugh moved for summary judgment on all counts in November 2014.”

Taylor v. Progress Energy, Inc., 493 F.3d 454 (4th Cir. 2007). · cites it 2× “29 U.S.C. §§ 2616 , 2617(b); see also S. Rep.”

Sandra L. Rice v. Sunrise Express, Inc., Gainey Corp. & Sunrise U.S.A., Inc., 209 F.3d 1008 (7th Cir. 2000). “” 29 U.S.C. § 2616 (a)(1). King, 166 F.3d at 891 .”

Miller v. Defiance Metal Prods., Inc., 989 F. Supp. 945 (N.D. Ohio 1997). “29 U.S.C. § 2616 (a)(1). Therefore, in order to prevail on her claim, plaintiff must show four things: (1) she was an eligible employee, (2) she had a serious medical condition, (3) she was employed by a covered employer, and (4) the employer interfered with her rights under…”

Bush v. Compass Grp. USA, Inc., 194 F. Supp. 3d 580 (W.D. Ky. 2016). “2012) (“Generally, ‘a plaintiff ha[s] not waived a claim based on the interference theory where the com *589 plaint alleged general violations of 29 U.S.C. § 2616 that could apply to both interference and retaliation claims.”

Cox v. Autozone, Inc., 990 F. Supp. 1369 (M.D. Ala. 1998). “The Secretary of Labor has the power to investigate, 29 U.S.C. § 2616 , bring lawsuits, 29 U.S.”

Rodriguez v. Morgan Stanley Wealth Mgmt. (D.N.J. 2020). · cites it 2× “In fact, Plaintiff makes no reference to the 8 The Court notes that Plaintiff also attempts to assert claims pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 2616 . This provision does not provide a private cause of action under the FMLA and only applies to those parties vested with the investigative…”

Auth. to Obtain & Share Statewide Voter Roll Data (OLC 2026). · cites it 2× “§ 1467a(g)(2) (“any investigation under this sec- tion”); 29 U.S.C. § 2616(d) (“any investigation provided for in this section”); 46 U.”

Nelson v. Univ. of Texas at Dallas, 461 F. Supp. 2d 504 (N.D. Tex. 2006). “3 Daniel also fails to show that, through 29 U.S.C. § 2616 , Congress “manifestfed] an intent to exclude Ex parte Young suits.”

C.A. Jefferson Jr. v. UCBR (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2015). “2 See 29 U.S.C. §2616 (a)(1). 2 Claimant filed a claim for benefits which the Unemployment Compensation Service Center denied, finding him ineligible under Sections 402(b)3 and 401(d)(1)4 of the Law with regard to the waiting week ending July 19, 2014, because: (1) Claimant…”

Taylor v. Progress Energy, Inc (4th Cir. 2007). “29 U.S.C. §§ 2616 , 2617(b); see also S. Rep.”

— 29 U.S.C. § 2616(d) — 1 case

Auth. to Obtain & Share Statewide Voter Roll Data (OLC 2026). “§ 1467a(g)(2) (“any investigation under this sec- tion”); 29 U.S.C. § 2616(d) (“any investigation provided for in this section”); 46 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.