42 U.S.C. § 2003
Regulations
The Secretary of Health and Human Services is also authorized to make such other regulations as he deems desirable to carry out the provisions of this subchapter.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1976–2024 · leading case: Zappan v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole
Zappan v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole (2005)
“42 U.S.C. § 2003 -3a; 43 P.S. § 955(d); see also *218 Abramson v.”
Lewis v. Weinberger (1976)
“The regulations governing the provision of Indian health care were promulgated pursuant to 42 U.S.C.A. § 2003 (1974). 4 . The adoption of IHS administrative instructions is authorized ai: 42 C.”
Sealy v. the HERTZ CORPORATION (2009)
“Plaintiff Vadim Sealy brings this action against his former employer, he Hertz Corporation, alleging that he suffered racial discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2003 et seq., the Civil Rights Act of 1991 (“Title…”
Valdes v. Union City Board of Education (2006)
“See 42 U.S.C. § 2003 -3a; see also Abramson v.”
Phillips v. Pepsi Bottling Group (2010)
“Garrett asserted that his former employer discriminated against him in response to his involvement in promoting diversity within the company, and sought relief for disparate treatment, retaliation, and constructive discharge.”
Igwe v. E.I. Dupont De Nemours & Co. (2006)
“42 U.S.C. § 2003 -3a; see also Abramson v.”
Koss v. Palmer Fire District Number One (2014)
“) Title VII defines an employer as having at least fifteen employees, 42 U.S.C. § 2003 (b); and ch. 151B defines an employer as having at least six employees.”
Bateman v. United Parcel Service, Inc. (2002)
“The district court granted summary judgment for UPS, framing plaintiffs allegations as follows: Plaintiff filed this action alleging violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2003 , et seq. (“Title VII”).”
Laurey v. Chemung County Department of Social Services (2004)
“Plaintiff, who is black, asserts a claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2003 et seq., alleging that her former employer, defendant Chemung County Department of Social Services (“DSS”), dis *249 criminated against her in a number of ways, and that…”
James v. Get Fresh Produce Inc. (2019)
“See 42 U.S.C. § 2003–(5)(e)(1); Stepney v. Naperville Sch.”
Mark Vitalis v. Sun Constructors, Inc. (2024)
“Based upon the standards applied under 42 U.S.C. § 2003 (k) and 28 U.S.C. § 1988 , defendants are not entitled to attorneys’ fees in successfully defending a Title VII claim, unless the plaintiff’s action was frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation.”
Mayberry v. Tarrant Cty Commty (2002)
“See 42 U.S.C. § 2003 - 5(f)(1). The instant lawsuit was filed November 6, 1997, well beyond the 90-day period, and Mayberry does not argue that the period was tolled.”
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.