29 U.S.C. § 262

Definitions

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

(a) When the terms “employer”, “employee”, and “wage” are used in this chapter in relation to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended [29 U.S.C. 201 et seq.], they shall have the same meaning as when used in such Act of 1938.(b) When the term “employer” is used in this chapter in relation to the Walsh-Healey Act or Bacon-Davis Act 11 See References in Text note below. it shall mean the contractor or subcontractor covered by such Act.(c) When the term “employee” is used in this chapter in relation to the Walsh-Healey Act or the Bacon-Davis Act ¹ it shall mean any individual employed by the contractor or subcontractor covered by such Act in the performance of his contract or subcontract.(d) The term “Wash-Healey Act” 22 So in original. Probably should be “Walsh-Healey Act”. means the Act entitled “An Act to provide conditions for the purchase of supplies and the making of contracts by the United States, and for other purposes”, approved June 30, 1936 (49 Stat. 2036), as amended; ¹ and the term “Bacon-Davis Act” means the Act entitled “An Act to amend the Act approved March 3, 1931, relating to the rate of wages for laborers and mechanics employed by contractors and subcontractors on public buildings”, approved August 30, 1935 (49 Stat. 1011), as amended.¹(e) As used in section 255 of this title the term “State” means any State of the United States or the District of Columbia or any Territory or possession of the United States.(May 14, 1947, ch. 52, § 13, 61 Stat. 90.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended, referred to in subsec. (a), is act June 25, 1938, ch. 676, 52 Stat. 1060, 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.

The Walsh-Healey Act and the Act entitled “An Act to provide conditions for the purchase of supplies and the making of contracts by the United States, and for other purposes”, approved June 30, 1936, referred to in subsecs. (b) to (d), are act June 30, 1936, ch. 881, 49 Stat. 2036, which was classified principally to sections 35 to 45 of former Title 41, Public Contracts, and was substantially repealed and restated as chapter 65 (§ 6501 et seq.) of Title 41, Public Contracts, by Pub. L. 111–350, §§ 3, 7(b), Jan. 4, 2011, 124 Stat. 3677, 3855. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title of 1936 Act note set out under section 101 of Title 41 and Tables. For disposition of sections of former Title 41, see Disposition Table preceding section 101 of Title 41.

The “Bacon-Davis Act”, as defined for purposes of this chapter in subsec. (d), is act Aug. 30, 1935, ch. 825, 49 Stat. 1011, which generally amended act Mar. 3, 1931, ch. 411, 46 Stat. 1494, popularly known as the “Davis-Bacon Act”, and which was classified to sections 276a to 276a–6 of former Title 40, Public Buildings, Property, and Works. Sections 276a to 276a–6 of former Title 40 were repealed and reenacted as sections 3141–3144, 3146, and 3147 of Title 40, Public Buildings, Property, and Works, by Pub. L. 107–217, §§ 1, 6(b), Aug. 21, 2002, 116 Stat. 1062, 1304.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 12 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1983–2022 · leading case: Amaya v. DGS Constr., 278 A.3d 1216 (Md. 2022).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Amaya v. DGS Constr., 278 A.3d 1216 (Md. 2022). “” See 29 U.S.C. § 262 . Federal regulations in the CFR were promulgated in 1947 following the passage of the PPA, providing a “General Statement as to the Effect of the Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947 on the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.”

Melanson v. Browning-Ferris Indus., Inc., 281 F.3d 272 (1st Cir. 2002). “Of course, an employee may not waive a claim pursuant to the Age Discrimination and Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq.”

Dep't of the Treasury-Internal Revenue Serv. v. Fed. Labor Relations Auth., 521 F.3d 1148 (9th Cir. 2008). · cites it 2× “See 29 U.S.C. § 262 (a). In 1974, Congress amended the FLSA by expanding the definition of “employee,” and the statute states that: In the case of an individual employed by a public agency, such term means— any individual employed by the Government of the United States— (i) as a…”

Koyen v. Consol. Edison Co. of New York, Inc., 560 F. Supp. 1161 (S.D.N.Y. 1983). “§ 216 (b) (incorporated by reference in 29 U.S.C. § 262 (b)). 18 . 29 U.S.C. § 626 (b) (emphasis added).”

Glenn Elec. Co. Inc. v. Raymond Donovan, Sec'y United States Dep't of Labor & Comptroller Gen. of the United States, 755 F.2d 1028 (3rd Cir. 1985). “” 29 U.S.C. § 262 . The Davis-Bacon Act makes it mandatory for “every contract in excess of $2,000, to which the United States or the District of Columbia is a party, for construction, alteration, and/or repair .”

Doris Neely v. Good Samaritan Hosp., 345 F. App'x 39 (6th Cir. 2009). “See 29 U.S.C. § 262 (f)(2). Third, the settlement agreement contained the following merger clause (“paragraph 13”): 13.”

Amaya v. DGS Constr. LLC, 246 A.3d 616 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2021). “” 29 U.S.C. § 262 ; 29 U.S.C. § 203 . The Supreme Court, in Tennessee Coal, Iron & R.”

Wagner v. Nutrasweet Co., 873 F. Supp. 87 (N.D. Ill. 1994). “§ 2000e (Title VII); 29 U.S.C. § 262 (b) and (c). Second, the court has federal question jurisdiction over Wagner’s claims pursuant to 28 U.”

Bailey v. United Airlines, Inc., 101 F. Supp. 2d 311 (E.D. Pa. 2000). “29 U.S.C. § 262 (d)(2); Colgan v. Fisher Scientific Co.”

Gray v. New England Tel. & Tel. Co., 792 F.2d 251 (1st Cir. 1986). “29 U.S.C. § 262 (b). However, defendants may obtain fees under Alyeska.”

Mull v. Arco Durethene Plastics, Inc., 599 F. Supp. 158 (N.D. Ill. 1984). “On January 16, 1980, he filed both his EEOC charges and also a charge with the Attorney General of the State of Illinois.”

Lewandowski v. Teamsters Local 700 (N.D. Ill. 2020). “On November 12, 2015, the IDOT suspended Lewandowski’s employment because he was accused of a class A misdemeanor (exposing his sex organs for the purpose of sexual arousal), which was ultimately downgraded to a class C misdemeanor (disorderly conduct).”

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.