29 U.S.C. § 628
Rules and regulations; exemptions
In accordance with the provisions of subchapter II of chapter 5 of title 5, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission may issue such rules and regulations as it may consider necessary or appropriate for carrying out this chapter, and may establish such reasonable exemptions to and from any or all provisions of this chapter as it may find necessary and proper in the public interest.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 117
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1973–2024 · leading case: Richard M. Villarreal v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 839 F.3d 958 (11th Cir. 2016).
Richard M. Villarreal v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 839 F.3d 958 (11th Cir. 2016). “Four Justices reached this result based on the plain text, though they also cited an EEOC regulation as evidence that “the agency charged by Congress with 63 Case: 15-10602 Date Filed: 10/05/2016 Page: 64 of 76 responsibility for implementing the statute, 29 U.S.C. § 628 , ha[s]…”
Smith v. City of Jackson, 544 U.S. 228 (2005). “[11] Finally, we note that both the Department of Labor, which initially drafted the legislation, and the EEOC, which is the agency charged by Congress with responsibility for implementing the statute, 29 U. S. C. § 628 , have consistently interpreted the ADEA to authorize…”
Gen. Dynamics Land Sys., Inc. v. Cline, 540 U.S. 581 (2004). “See 29 U. S. C. § 628 . The Court brushes aside the EEOC's interpretation as "clearly wrong.”
John Miller, Jr. v. Hillary Clinton, 687 F.3d 1332 (D.C. Cir. 2012). “See 29 U.S.C. §§ 628 , 633a(b). Accordingly, this clause does not exclude § 2669(c) employees from the category of “employees of the United States Government” for purposes of the ADEA.”
William Bridge v. New Holland Logansport, Incorp, 815 F.3d 356 (7th Cir. 2016). “Bridge also relies on guidance from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the entity authorized to issue rules and regulations under the ADEA, see 29 U.S.C. § 628 ), which states in Section 2-III(B)(l)(a)(iii)(b) of its Compliance Manual that all joint employees should be…”
Aarp v. Eeoc, 390 F. Supp. 2d 437 (E.D. Pa. 2005). “[6] In AARP I, while not disputing the holding of Erie County, [7] the EEOC claimed that the regulation at issue fell within its authority under section 9 of the ADEA, which gives the EEOC power "to issue such rules and regulations as it may consider necessary or appropriate for…”
Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Sperling, 493 U.S. 165 (1990). “29 U. S. C. §628 (1982 ed. and Supp. V). Section •7(b) of the ADEA incorporates enforcement provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA), 52 Stat.”
Kimel v. Florida Bd. of Regents, 528 U.S. 62 (2000). “§ 628 (a) (providing that “[i]t shall be unlawful for an employer” to engage in certain age discriminatory practices); § 680(b) (defining “employer” to include “a State or a political subdivision of a State”); § 630(f) (defining “employee” as “an individual employed by any…”
Tina Grant v. City of Blytheville, Arkansas, 841 F.3d 767 (8th Cir. 2016). “Under Title VII, the ADEA, and § 1983, an employer may not discriminate against an employee with respect to his compensation, or the terms, conditions, or privileges of his employment because of the employee’s race or age.”
Fulghum v. Embarq Corp., 785 F.3d 395 (10th Cir. 2015). “2007) (quoting 29 U.S.C. § 628 ). In 2007, the EEOC adopted a regulation exempting from all ADEA prohibitions any alteration, reduction, or elimination of health benefits for retirees who are eligible for Medicare health benefits.”
Ronnie Stilwell v. City of Williams, 831 F.3d 1234 (9th Cir. 2016). “yer to discriminate against any of his employees or applicants for employment, for an employment agency to discriminate against any individual, or for a labor organization to discriminate against any member thereof or applicant for membership, because such individual, member or…”
Shikles v. Sprint/United Mgmt. Co., 426 F.3d 1304 (10th Cir. 2005). “” Rather, the EEOC argues that “if the charging party has satisfied the express prerequisites to suit [laid out in the text of the ADEA], he has the right to sue his employer, based on the charge, and have a court determine the merits of his discrimination claim.” The EEOC is…”
— 29 U.S.C. § 628(f)(2) — 1 case
Betts v. Hamilton Cnty. Bd. of Mental Retardation & Developmental Disabilities, 848 F.2d 692 (6th Cir. 1988).
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.