29 U.S.C. § 6

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

(a)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), in order to be approved as a program of job training under this Act, a program of job training of an employer approved under section 7 must provide training for a period of not less than six months in an occupation in a growth industry, in an occupation requiring the use of new technological skills, or in an occupation for which demand for labor exceeds supply.“(2) A program of job training providing training for a period of at least three but less than six months may be approved if the Administrator determines (in accordance with standards which the Administrator shall prescribe) that the purpose of this Act would be met through that program.“(b) Subject to section 10 and the other provisions of this Act, a veteran who has been approved for participation in a program of job training under this Act and has a current certificate of eligibility for such participation may enter a program of job training that has been approved under section 7 and that is offered to the veteran by the employer.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 10 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1995–2024 · leading case: Cole v. Gaming Ent., L.L.C., 199 F. Supp. 2d 208 (D. Del. 2002).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Cole v. Gaming Ent., L.L.C., 199 F. Supp. 2d 208 (D. Del. 2002). · cites it 2× “, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 6 , et seq. Presently before the court is the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint.”

Pub. Citizen Health Rsch. Grp. v. United States Dep't of Labor, 557 F.3d 165 (3rd Cir. 2009). “§ 6 (b)(5)] to require setting multiple PELs based on the lowest level particular industries or operations could achieve,” and that, in the face of statutory silence, “OSHA has the authority to adopt the reasonable interpretation that it judges will best carry out the purposes…”

Alight Solutions, LLC v. Thomson (N.D. Ill. 2023). “See 29 U.S.C. § 6 (a)(1). Because Thomson elects to use the McDonnell Douglas burden shifting framework, she must show evidence that “(1) she is a member of a protected class, (2) she was meeting the defendant’s 2 The parties do not dispute that “Connecticut antidiscrimination…”

Bd. of Trs. of the Constr. Indus. & Laborers Jt. Pension Trust v. John Jory, LLC (D. Nev. 2024). “The Pension Trust is an “employee benefit pension plan” as defined in 29 U.S.C. § 6 1002(2); and a “multiemployer plan” as defined in 29 U.”

Pub Citizen Health v. OSHA (3rd Cir. 2009). “OSHA stated that it “has not interpreted [ 29 U.S.C. § 6 (b)(5)] to require setting multiple PELs based on the lowest level particular industries or operations could achieve,” and that, in the face of statutory silence, “OSHA has the authority to adopt the reasonable 2 Likewise,…”

Murdy v. Nashua Sch. Dist. (D.N.H. 2006). “See 29 U.S.C. § 6 2 6 (c)(1)-(2); RSA § 354-A:21-a, 22.”

Cadegan v. McCarron (D.N.H. 2002). “1997) (construing plan asset for purposes of 29 U.S.C. § 6 6 4 ) ; Motion Picture Lab.”

Tucker v. Kingsbury Corp. (D.N.H. 1996). “6 0 2 , as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 6 2 1 , et seq. (1985 & Supp.”

Kopf v. Chloride Power (D.N.H. 1995). “602 (codified at 29 U.S.C. § 6 2 1 , et seq. (1985)) and (2) employment discrimination based on disability in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), Pub.”

Piascik-Lambeth v. Textron Auto., 2000 DNH 264 (D.N.H. 2000). “The plaintiff filed suit on May 2 4 , 2000, alleging violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 6 2 1 , et seq. (“ADEA”); violation of the Older Workers Benefits Protection Act, 29 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.