29 U.S.C. § 2654
Regulations
The Secretary of Labor shall prescribe such regulations as are necessary to carry out subchapter I and this subchapter not later than 120 days after
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 136
cases (11 in the last 5 years), 1995–2026 · leading case: Ragsdale v. Wolverine World Wide, Inc., 535 U.S. 81 (2002).
Ragsdale v. Wolverine World Wide, Inc., 535 U.S. 81 (2002). “29 U. S. C. § 2654 (1994 ed.). The Secretary's judgment that a particular regulation fits within this statutory constraint must be given considerable weight.”
Navarro Pomares v. Pfizer Corp., 261 F.3d 90 (1st Cir. 2001). “RESOLVING THE THRESHOLD LEGAL ISSUE Congress left the task of defining “disability” to the Secretary, see 29 U.S.C. § 2654 , who reasonably concluded that a disability is an “impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of an individual.”
Smith v. Diffee Ford-Lincoln-Mercury, Inc., 298 F.3d 955 (10th Cir. 2002). “2d 167 (2002) (citing 29 U.S.C. § 2654 ). The First Circuit has held unequivocally that such regulations are entitled to deference: We do not write on a clean slate.”
Woods v. Start Treatment & Recovery Centers, Inc., 864 F.3d 158 (2d Cir. 2017). “Chevron deference is appropriate where Congress has delegated authority to an administrative agency to - make rules carrying the- force of law and that agency’s interpretation to which deference is to be given was promulgated in the exercise of that authority.”
Richard Conoshenti v. Pub. Serv. Elec. & Gas Co., 364 F.3d 135 (3rd Cir. 2004). “In addition, the United States Department of Labor (“DOL”) has promulgated regulations implementing the FMLA, as authorized by 29 U.S.C. § 2654 . Of particular significance here, § 825.”
Hurlbert Ex Rel. Est. of Hurlbert v. St. Mary's Health Care Sys., Inc., 439 F.3d 1286 (11th Cir. 2006). “Congress authorized the Secretary of Labor to promulgate regulations "necessary to carry out” the FMLA, 29 U.S.C. § 2654 , and "[t]he Secretary's judgment that a particular regulation fits within this statutory constraint must be given considerable weight.”
Penny Bachelder Mark Bachelder v. Am. West Airlines, Inc., 259 F.3d 1112 (9th Cir. 2001). “y individual because such individual— (1) has filed any charge, or has instituted or caused to be instituted any proceeding, under or related to this subchapter; (2) has given, or is about to give, any information in connection with any inquiry or proceeding relating to any…”
Mora v. Chem-Tronics, Inc., 16 F. Supp. 2d 1192 (S.D. Cal. 1998). “In 29 U.S.C. § 2654 , Congress specifically directed the Secretary of Labor to “prescribe such regulations as are necessary to carry out subchapter I of this chapter and subchapter.”
Joseph Egan v. Delaware River Port Auth., 851 F.3d 263 (3rd Cir. 2017). “220 (c), states that “[t]he Act’s prohibition against interference prohibits an employer from discriminating or retaliating against an employee or prospective employee for having exercised or attempted to exercise FMLA rights,” and further states that “employers cannot use the…”
Hackworth v. Progressive Cas. Ins., 468 F.3d 722 (10th Cir. 2006). “” 29 U.S.C. § 2654 . Pursuant to this grant of power, the DOL promulgated a regulation, in part, to clarify the method to use in determining whether two worksites are “within 75 miles” of one another, which provides: The 75-mile distance is measured by surface miles, using…”
Harbert v. Healthcare Servs. Grp., Inc., 391 F.3d 1140 (10th Cir. 2004). “, 29 U.S.C. § 2654 . The regulation at issue in.”
Joey L. Mitchell v. Glenn Chapman, 343 F.3d 811 (6th Cir. 2003). “See 29 U.S.C. § 2654 . Generally, we defer to the regulations when determining how to interpret a statute, as long as the regulations pres-ed a reasonable interpretation of the statute.”
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.