42 U.S.C. § 213
CONGRESSIONAL REVIEW.
“The Congress may alter, amend, or repeal this Act with respect to any compact set forth in subtitle B after the expiration of the 10-year period following the date of the enactment of this Act [
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 24
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1950–2022 · leading case: Bostock v. Clayton Cnty., 140 S. Ct. 1731 (2020).
Bostock v. Clayton Cnty., 140 S. Ct. 1731 (2020). “§14702 (Appalachian Regional De- velopment; Nondiscrimination) 42 U. S. C. §213 (f ) (Military Benefits) 42 U.”
Gary Jackson v. Thomas Modly, 949 F.3d 763 (D.C. Cir. 2020). “2008) (explaining that courts disagreed about whether the PHSCC was covered under Title VII and that “Congress responded to this debate by enacting the [HPEPA of 1998], which added subsection (f) to 42 U.S.C. § 213 (2000)”). To effect this clarification, the Congress chose the…”
Middlebrooks v. Leavitt, 525 F.3d 341 (4th Cir. 2008). “Congress responded to this debate by enacting the Health Professions Education Partnerships Act of 1998, which added subsection (f) to 42 U.S.C. § 213 (2000). Pub.L. No. 105-392, § 402 (a), 112 Stat.”
Verbeck v. United States, 89 Fed. Cl. 47 (Fed. Cl. 2009). “3524 (1998), which added a provision to 42 U.S.C. § 213 that provides, in relevant part, that “[a]ctive service of commissioned officers of the [PHS’ Commissioned Corps] shall be deemed to be active military service in the Armed Forces of the United States for purposes of all…”
Durand Hedin v. Tommy G. Thompson, Sec'y, United States Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 355 F.3d 746 (4th Cir. 2004). “3524 , 3587-88 (1998), as codified at 42 U.S.C. § 213 (f). Relying on this provision, the district court held that “the anti discrimination provisions of Title VII and ADEA” under which Hedin sought to recover did not apply to him and so granted the Government’s motion to…”
Waller v. United States, 180 F.2d 194 (D.C. Cir. 1950). “689 (1944), 42 U.S.C. § 213 (a) (1946), 42 U.S.C.A. § 213 (a) and (b), which codifies the laws relating to the Public Health Service, defines the benefits accruing to commissioned officers of *196 the Army which are accorded to Public Health Service officers.”
Wanner v. Glen Ellen Corp., 373 F. Supp. 983 (D. Vt. 1974). “We conceive that in amending section 213(a) of the Public Health Service Act, 42 U.S.C. § 213 (a), in 1956, Congress was filling an interstice in section 511 of the Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Civil Relief Act created when the Public Health Service assumed an expanded role in the…”
Brooks v. United States, 65 Fed. Cl. 135 (Fed. Cl. 2005). “part of the military forces of the United States pursuant to Executive order,” 42 U.S.C. § 213 (a)(3). . At oral argument, plaintiffs counsel made several references to "an agency record” in this case.”
Diaz-Romero v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 115 (1st Cir. 2008). “” The court noted that, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 213 (f) 3 , Diaz-Romero *118 was, at all times relevant to the complaint, deemed to be in active military service in the Armed Forces.”
Omega Indus., Inc. v. Raffaele, 894 F. Supp. 1425 (D. Nev. 1995). “Specifically, 42 U.S.C. § 213 (e) provides: Active service of commissioned officers of the [Public Health] Service shall be deemed to be active military service in the Armed Forces of the United States for the purposes of all rights, privileges, immuni *1430 ties, and benefits…”
Diaz-Romero v. Ashcroft, 472 F. Supp. 2d 156 (D.P.R. 2007). “Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 213 (f), 4 he is deemed to be in active military service in the Armed Forces and hence, excluded from the provisions of Title VII, specifically 42 U.”
Smith v. Raytheon Co., 297 F. Supp. 2d 399 (D. Mass. 2004). “See 42 U.S.C. § 213 (a)(12) ("The provisions of .”
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.