29 U.S.C. § 2651

Effect on other laws

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

(a) Federal and State antidiscrimination laws

Nothing in this Act or any amendment made by this Act shall be construed to modify or affect any Federal or State law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, religion, color, national origin, sex, age, or disability.

(b) State and local laws

Nothing in this Act or any amendment made by this Act shall be construed to supersede any provision of any State or local law that provides greater family or medical leave rights than the rights established under this Act or any amendment made by this Act.

(Pub. L. 103–3, title IV, § 401, Feb. 5, 1993, 107 Stat. 26.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

This Act, referred to in text, is Pub. L. 103–3, Feb. 5, 1993, 107 Stat. 6, known as the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, which enacted this chapter, sections 60m and 60n of Title 2, The Congress, and sections 6381 to 6387 of Title 5, Government Organization and Employees, amended section 2105 of Title 5, and enacted provisions set out as notes under section 2601 of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 2601 of this title and Tables.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date

Section effective 6 months after Feb. 5, 1993, see section 405(b)(1) of Pub. L. 103–3, set out as a note under section 2601 of this title.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 36 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1996–2022 · leading case: Bostock v. Clayton Cnty., 140 S. Ct. 1731 (2020).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Bostock v. Clayton Cnty., 140 S. Ct. 1731 (2020). · cites it 2× “§§2601 (a)(6) and (b)(4) (Family and Medical Leave; Findings and Purposes)  29 U. S. C. §2651 (a) (Family and Medical Leave; Effect on Other Laws)  29 U.”

Nevada Dep't of Human Resources v. Hibbs, 538 U.S. 721 (2003). · cites it 2× “See 29 U. S. C. § 2651 (b) (“Nothing in this Act or any amendment made by this Act shall be construed to supersede any provision of any State or local law that provides greater family or medical leave rights than the rights established under this Act or any amendment made by…”

Nagle v. Acton-Boxborough Reg'l Sch. Dist., 576 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2009). · cites it 2× “§ 2651 (b) ("Nothing in [the FMLA] or any amendment made by this Act shall be construed to supersede any provision of any State or local law that provides greater family or medical leave rights than the rights established under this Act or any amendment made by this Act.").…”

Aurora Med. Grp. v. Dep't of Workforce Dev., 2000 WI 70 (Wis. 2000). · cites it 4× “" 29 U.S.C. § 2651 (b). According to the ALJ, § 514(d) of ERISA 8 dictates that ERISA is subordinate to § 401(b) of the federal FMLA.”

Vandevander v. Verizon Wireless, LLC, 149 F. Supp. 3d 724 (S.D.W. Va 2016). · cites it 2× “See 29 U.S.C. § 2651 (“Nothing in this Act ..”

Cavin v. Honda of Am. Mfg., Inc., 138 F. Supp. 2d 987 (S.D. Ohio 2001). · cites it 2× “See 29 U.S.C. § 2651 (b); 29 C.F.R. § 825.701 .”

Joan Sherfel v. Reggie Newson, 768 F.3d 561 (6th Cir. 2014). · cites it 2× “” 29 U.S.C. § 2651 (b). The term “this Act” is as unambiguous as any in the United States Code; and here too the Supreme Court has already told us that “this Act,” as used in a savings clause, does not “alter the pre-emptive effect” of any Act but the one in which it appears.”

Buser v. S. Food Serv., Inc., 73 F. Supp. 2d 556 (M.D.N.C. 1999). “29 U.S.C. § 2651 . As noted previously, Defendants maintain that, since Section 2651 does not expressly refer to “state *572 common law,” then such claims are precluded by the FMLA.”

Bellido-Sullivan v. Am. Int'l Grp., Inc., 123 F. Supp. 2d 161 (S.D.N.Y. 2000). “8, 2000) (holding that the FMLA should, like Title VII, not preempt common law claims “[bjecause the remedies for a FMLA .”

Milwaukee Transp. Servs., Inc. v. Dep't of Workforce Dev., 2001 WI App 40 (Wis. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “" 29 U.S.C. § 2651 (b). [4] As we have seen, WIS.”

O'Hara v. Mt. Vernon Bd. of Educ., 16 F. Supp. 2d 868 (S.D. Ohio 1998). “§ 2651 (a) provides that, “nothing in this Act (FMLA) or any amendment made by this Act shall be construed to modify or affect any Federal or State law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, religion, color, national origin, sex, age, or disability.” It is clear from…”

Johnson v. Honda of Am. Mfg., Inc., 221 F. Supp. 2d 853 (S.D. Ohio 2002). “29 U.S.C. § 2651 . The Plaintiff errs, however, in his contention that the issue of whether a wrongful discharge claim may be brought in conjunction with an FMLA claim is a preemption issue.”

Show all 36 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.