29 U.S.C. § 632
Omitted
[omitted]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1978–2022 · leading case: Miguel VAZQUEZ Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. E. AIR LINES, INC., Defendant-Appellant, 579 F.2d 107 (1st Cir. 1978).
Miguel VAZQUEZ Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. E. AIR LINES, INC., Defendant-Appellant, 579 F.2d 107 (1st Cir. 1978). “We find added support for our position in the Report prepared by the Secretary, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 632 , covering activities under the ADEA during 1976.”
James J. Nicholson v. Cpc Int'l Inc., a Corp., & James R. Eiszner, 877 F.2d 221 (3rd Cir. 1989). “29 U.S.C. § 632 . Although some of its information may come from investigations which it has independently initiated, see 29 C.”
Eeoc v. At&t Co., 36 F. Supp. 2d 994 (S.D. Ohio 1998). “See, 29 U.S.C. § 632 . Given the fact that the EEOC *997 is given exclusive jurisdiction over the initiation of ADEA charges, this Court is not inclined to find that Congress, which specifically references to the EEOC in 29 U.”
Meckes v. Reynolds Metals Co., 604 F. Supp. 598 (N.D. Ala. 1985). “Furthermore, the Annual Reports filed with Congress by the Secretary of Labor under ADEA Section 13, 29 U.S.C. § 632 , in January, 1968, 1969, and 1970, without exception, state that the administrative functions of the Secretary under ADEA had been delegated to the Wage and Hour…”
Palmer v. Ticcione, 576 F.2d 459 (2d Cir. 1978). “Section 13 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. § 632 (1970). . Section 6 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act Amendments of 1978, P.”
Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 36 F. Supp. 2d 994 (S.D. Ohio 1998). “See, 29 U.S.C. § 632 . Given the fact that the EEOC *997 is given exclusive jurisdiction over the initiation of ADEA charges, this Court is not inclined to find that Congress, which specifically references to the EEOC in 29 U.”
Norman Banks v. AmerenUE, 25 F. App'x 483 (8th Cir. 2002). “, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 632 , et seq. The district court 1 denied Banks’s post-discovery motion to amend his complaint to include claims under 42 U.”
Mcgrone v. Austin III (E.D. Va. 2022). “(Count II); (3) age discrimination pursuant to 29 USC § 632 et. seq. (Count III); and (4) retaliation pursuant to 29 USC § 632 et.”
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.