42 U.S.C. § 6103
OZONE DESIGNATION REQUIREMENTS.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1980–2025 · leading case: Action All. of Senior Citizens of Greater Philadelphia v. Margaret Heckler, 789 F.2d 931 (D.C. Cir. 1986).
Action All. of Senior Citizens of Greater Philadelphia v. Margaret Heckler, 789 F.2d 931 (D.C. Cir. 1986). “” 42 U.S.C. § 6103 (b)(1). The challenged regulation brings all HHS rules within this exception by stating that “[a]ny age distinction contained in a rule or regulation issued by HHS shall be presumed to be necessary to the achievement of a statutory objective of the program to…”
Action All. of Senior Citizens of Greater Philadelphia v. Otis R. Bowen, 846 F.2d 1449 (D.C. Cir. 1988). “42 U.S.C. § 6103 (a)(1). These were to serve as a model for “agency-specific” regulations — ones to be issued by the various federal agencies for their own programs, 42 U.”
C. Kamps v. Baylor Univ., 592 F. App'x 282 (5th Cir. 2014). “” 42 U.S.C. § 6103 (b)(1)(B). A factor other than age is one that bears “a direct and substantial relationship to the normal operation of the program or activity.”
Stoner v. Young Concert Artists, Inc., 626 F. App'x 293 (2d Cir. 2015). “” 42 U.S.C. § 6103 (b)(1)(A). The ADA also does not apply to programs “established under authority of any law” which provides benefits on the basis of age or “establishes criteria for participation in age-related terms or describes intended beneficiaries or target groups in such…”
Steshenko v. Gayrard, 44 F. Supp. 3d 941 (N.D. Cal. 2014). “” 42 U.S.C. §§ 6103 (a)(l)(4). The agency can “seek to achieve compliance” .”
Action All. of Senior Citizens of Greater Philadelphia v. Louis W. Sullivan, 930 F.2d 77 (D.C. Cir. 1991). “On the other hand, the Age Discrimination Act required agencies to follow the model regulation, 42 U.S.C. § 6103 (1988), so a case could be made that the controlling date should be that of OMB’s ruling (February 14, 1980) or of HHS’s adoption of the model regulations (June 12,…”
Montalvo-Padilla v. Univ. of Puerto Rico, 498 F. Supp. 2d 464 (D.P.R. 2007). “42 U.S.C. § 6103 (c). Section § 6103(c) is key in determining whether or not discriminatory employment practices are covered by the ADA.”
Steshenko v. Albee, 42 F. Supp. 3d 1281 (N.D. Cal. 2014). “” 42 U.S.C. §§ 6103 (a)(l)(4). The agency can “seek to achieve compliance” with its regulations “by terminating, or refusing to grant or to continue, assistance under the program or activity.”
Brecker v. Queens B'nai B'rith Hous. Dev. Fund Co., 607 F. Supp. 428 (E.D.N.Y 1985). “Looking by comparison at another civil rights statute, the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, 42 U.S.C. § 6103 , which is similar to Section 504, we find an analogous result.”
Prezioso v. Amrhein, 154 A.D.2d 468 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989). “Furthermore, in light of the circumstances of this case, we find no basis upon which to grant an award of attorney fees pursuant to 42 USC § 1988 (see, 42 USC § 6103 [b] [1] [B]; Matter of Johnson v Blum, 58 NY2d 454, 458, n 2 ; Matter of Flowers v Perales, 140 AD2d 136, 144 ;…”
Parker v. Wakelin, 887 F. Supp. 14 (D. Me. 1995). “42 U.S.C. § 6103 (b)(1). It is particularly difficult to imagine how a pension system in which the rights and benefits are determined by an employee's years of service, as most are, can avoid having some disparate impact upon certain age groups.”
Belcher v. Ohio Dep't of Human Servs., 48 F. Supp. 2d 729 (S.D. Ohio 1999). “See 42 U.S.C. § 6103 . Pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 42.”
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.