Search for: "District of Columbia v. DOL"
Results 1 - 20
of 91
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
24 Aug 2015, 11:42 am
Reversing a decision by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, an August 21, 2015 decision by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Home Care Association of America v. [read post]
24 Aug 2015, 11:47 am
Reversing a decision by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, an August 21, 2015 decision by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Home Care Association of America v. [read post]
24 Aug 2015, 11:42 am
Reversing a decision by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, an August 21, 2015 decision by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Home Care Association of America v. [read post]
23 Mar 2018, 3:14 pm
Two other circuits have upheld the DOL rule (the Tenth and the District of Columbia Circuits). [read post]
9 Sep 2020, 11:30 am
District Court for the Southern District of New York called the DOL’s rule “arbitrary and capricious. [read post]
19 Jan 2015, 6:44 am
Following its successful effort to vacate the third-party employer provisions of the Department of Labor’s domestic service regulation, the Home Care Association of America has now successfully challenged the DOL’s narrowed definition of “companionship services” in a ruling by the same judge in the federal district court in the District of Columbia. [read post]
23 Dec 2014, 6:02 pm
On December 22, 2014, the District of Columbia federal district court vacated a new U.S. [read post]
23 Mar 2018, 3:14 pm
Two other circuits have upheld the DOL rule (the Tenth and the District of Columbia Circuits). [read post]
23 Mar 2018, 3:14 pm
Two other circuits have upheld the DOL rule (the Tenth and the District of Columbia Circuits). [read post]
9 Jul 2013, 2:46 pm
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia vacated a DOL Administrative Interpretation issued in 2010 which declared that Mortgage Loan Officers are not exempt from the FLSA overtime requirements. [read post]
30 Dec 2014, 6:47 am
Sec. 552.109, scheduled to go into effect on January 1, 2015, was vacated in a ruling by a federal district court in the District of Columbia. [read post]
11 Sep 2020, 1:57 pm
On September 8, 2020, a federal district court struck down the U.S. [read post]
9 Jul 2013, 3:46 pm
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia vacated a DOL Administrative Interpretation issued in 2010 which declared that Mortgage Loan Officers are not exempt from the FLSA overtime requirements. [read post]
19 Jun 2017, 7:17 am
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and is likely to provide further clarification and authority on the joint employer doctrine under the National Labor Relations Act, from which interpretations of the FLSA tend to emanate. [read post]
7 Apr 2013, 11:00 pm
The decision, UPMC Braddock v. [read post]
23 Dec 2014, 10:46 am
Determined to leave well-enough alone, a federal district court in the District of Columbia quashed the Department of Labor’s attempt to implement changes to the third party domestic service employer regulation that would have ended a 40-year old exemption from minimum wages and overtime pay. [read post]
16 Aug 2013, 4:40 am
In the meantime, if you are a covered employer operating in one of the 13 states that permits same-sex marriage, or the District of Columbia where same-sex marriage is recognized, now is the time to revise your policies, procedures and forms to conform with the DOL’s updated guidance. [read post]
23 Dec 2014, 6:02 pm
By Brian Steinbach On December 22, 2014, the District of Columbia federal district court vacated a new U.S. [read post]
23 Jan 2015, 12:29 pm
District Court for the District of Columbia issued its second opinion, ruling against the DOL and vacating the portions of the new regulations that would have made more than 90 percent of home care workers eligible for overtime pay. [read post]
9 Jul 2014, 10:24 am
Adopting the bulk of a magistrate’s recommendations, the federal district court for the District of Columbia has ruled that substantial evidence supported a DOL Administrative Review Board (ARB) decision — finding that Bank of America (BOA) consented to the desk audit portion of an OFCCP compliance review and that there was specific evidence of a violation of Executive Order (EO) 11246 to support the OFCCP’s decision to conduct an on-site review.… [read post]
