Whenever the health needs of the Indians can be better met thereby, the Secretary of Health and Human Services is authorized in his discretion to enter into contracts with any State, Territory, or political subdivision thereof, or any private nonprofit corporation, agency or institution providing for the transfer by the United States Public Health Service of Indian hospitals or health facilities, including initial operating equipment and supplies.
It shall be a condition of such transfer that all facilities transferred shall be available to meet the health needs of the Indians and that such health needs shall be given priority over those of the non-Indian population. No hospital or health facility that has been constructed or maintained for a specific tribe of Indians, or for a specific group of tribes, shall be transferred by the Secretary of Health and Human Services to a non-Indian entity or organization under this subchapter unless such action has been approved by the governing body of the tribe, or by the governing bodies of a majority of the tribes, for which such hospital or health facility has been constructed or maintained: Provided, That if, following such transfer by the United States Public Health Service, the Secretary of Health and Human Services finds the hospital or health facility transferred under this section is not thereafter serving the need of the Indians, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall notify those charged with management thereof, setting forth needed improvements, and in the event such improvements are not made within a time to be specified, shall immediately assume management and operation of such hospital or health facility.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
10
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1977–2026 · leading case:
Daly v. Citigroup Inc., 939 F.3d 415 (2d Cir. 2019).
Daly v. Citigroup Inc., 939 F.3d 415 (2d Cir. 2019).
“She alleged several gender discrimination and whistleblower retaliation claims, including claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2002 (e); the Equal Pay Act of 1963, 29 U.”
Schnitzler v. Reisch, 518 F. Supp. 2d 1098 (D.S.D. 2007).
“Stated another way, is refusing to participate in group sex offender treatment because in Schnitzler’s view it conflicts with his religious beliefs, is that a “religious exercise” which includes any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of…”
Leige v. Capitol Chevrolet, Inc., 895 F. Supp. 289 (M.D. Ala. 1995).
“Throughout Leige’s complaint and his amended complaint, he refers to Title VII as 42 U.S.C. § 2002 (e) et seq. Section 2002, which has no subsections, concerns Indian hospitals and facilities and clearly is irrelevant to this case.”
McGorrian v. E.M.S.A., 85 F. App'x 1 (3rd Cir. 2003).
“McGorrian's first cause of action alleged that "Dr. McGorrian was terminated from her employment with EMSA on June 4, 1998 because of her sex, female, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 USC § 2002 (e).”
Robinson v. Spellings, 255 F.R.D. 300 (D.D.C. 2009).
“INTRODUCTION Plaintiff, Robin Robinson, seeks review of a decision by the Merit Systems Protection Board (“MSPB”) regarding her claim that she was discriminated against on the basis of her race (African-American) and retaliated against in violation of Title VII of the Civil…”
Gere v. United States, 425 F. Supp. 847 (D.S.D. 1977).
· cites it 2× “The government asserts that this contract was negotiated pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2002 , which reads in relevant part as follows: Whenever the health needs of the Indians can be better met thereby, the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare is authorized in his discretion to…”
DeAngelis v. Hasbro, Inc. (1st Cir. 2026).
“The District Court Proceedings Tomaselli and DeAngelis sued Hasbro in Rhode Island state court, asserting claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2002 et seq., the Rhode Island Civil Rights Act, R.”
West v. Phila Elec. (3rd Cir. 1995).
“eet 2500 One Liberty Place Philadelphia, PA 19103-7301 Attorneys for Appellee OPINION OF THE COURT ROTH, Circuit Judge: Plaintiff James West appeals from a jury verdict in favor of the defendant, Philadelphia Electric Company ("PECO"), in this action in which he alleges racial…”
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.