29 U.S.C. § 2619

Notice

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

(a) In general

Each employer shall post and keep posted, in conspicuous places on the premises of the employer where notices to employees and applicants for employment are customarily posted, a notice, to be prepared or approved by the Secretary, setting forth excerpts from, or summaries of, the pertinent provisions of this subchapter and information pertaining to the filing of a charge.

(b) Penalty

Any employer that willfully violates this section may be assessed a civil money penalty not to exceed $100 for each separate offense.

(Pub. L. 103–3, title I, § 109, Feb. 5, 1993, 107 Stat. 19.)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 49 cases, 1995–2018 · leading case: Ragsdale v. Wolverine World Wide, Inc.

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Ragsdale v. Wolverine World Wide, Inc. (2002) scotus · cites it 2× “Although the Act requires that each employer post a general notice of FMLA rights, 29 U. S. C. § 2619 (a), the provision of individualized notice provides additional assurance that employees taking leave are aware of their rights under the Act.”

Tina Wallace v. FedEx Corporation (2014) ca6 · cites it 2× “§ 2615 into a strict-liability statute; and (3) requiring an em *589 ployer to provide notice beyond 29 U.S.C. § 2619’s requirements conflicts with the statute.”

Richard Conoshenti v. Public Service Electric & Gas Company (2004) ca3 “Moreover, Nusbaum never received any materials providing information on FMLA leave and the employer had not complied with 29 U.S.C. § 2619’s requirement that it post a notice outlining the FMLA’s important provisions and the employees’ FMLA rights.”

Mora v. Chem-Tronics, Inc. (1998) casd · cites it 2× “The FMLA places affirmative obligations on employers to: 1) notify employees of their rights and obligations under the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 2619 ; 2) provide up to twelve weeks of unpaid leave to employees who qualify and provide sufficient notice to their employers, 29 U.”

Nancy Kosakow v. New Rochelle Radiology Associates, P.C. (2001) ca2 “See 29 U.S.C. § 2619 . Moreover, an employer must notify an employee who plans to take medical leave whether her proposed leave is covered by the FMLA before the employee takes the leave.”

Hayduk v. City of Johnstown (2008) pawd · cites it 2× “In either case, the notice must include advise-ments that the employee’s leave “will be counted against [his] annual FMLA entitlement”; “any requirements for the employee to furnish medical certification of a serious health condition and the consequences of failing to do so”;…”

Michael Sarno v. Douglas Elliman-Gibbons & Ives, Inc., Insignia Financial Group, Inc. (1999) ca2 “Assuming arguendo that Sarno should have been given more explicit notice than was given (we note that the Act itself provides only for the posting of summary notices, see 29 U.S.C. § 2619 (a), and that the additional notice provisions set out in the regulations are highly…”

Reyer v. Saint Francis Country House (2017) paed “29 U.S.C. § 2619 (a), 29 C.F.R. § 825.300 .”

Chamber of Commerce v. National Labor Relations Board (2013) ca4 · cites it 2× “§ 12115 ; Family and Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. § 2619 (a). Even more tellingly, on at least one occasion, Congress has amended a labor law to impose a notice-posting requirement.”

Tate v. Farmland Industries, Inc. (2001) ca10 “Plaintiff did not allege a violation of the notice-posting requirements set forth in 29 U.S.C. § 2619 . Rather, Plaintiff claims Defendant’s failure to personally notify him of his FMLA rights in connection with his termination constituted interference with those rights under 29…”

Knussman v. State of Md. (1996) mdd · cites it 2× “29 U.S.C. § 2619 (a). Failure to do this is punishable by a civil money penalty.”

Philip R. Plant v. Morton International, Inc. (2000) ca6 “See 29 U.S.C. § 2619 (a). Moreover, because the FMLA was intended to set out minimum, labor standards, we do not believe that § 825.”

Show all 49 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.