FEDERAL · 29 U.S.C. · Chapter SUBCHAPTER III—MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

Effect on existing employment benefits

29 U.S.C. § 2652
Title29Labor
SubtitleF
ChapterSUBCHAPTER III—MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

This text of 29 U.S.C. § 2652 (Effect on existing employment benefits) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
29 U.S.C. § 2652.

Text

(a)More protective Nothing in this Act or any amendment made by this Act shall be construed to diminish the obligation of an employer to comply with any collective bargaining agreement or any employment benefit program or plan that provides greater family or medical leave rights to employees than the rights established under this Act or any amendment made by this Act.
(b)Less protective The rights established for employees under this Act or any amendment made by this Act shall not be diminished by any collective bargaining agreement or any employment benefit program or plan.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

David W. Callison v. City of Philadelphia
430 F.3d 117 (Third Circuit, 2005)
198 case citations
Marrero v. Camden County Board of Social Services
164 F. Supp. 2d 455 (D. New Jersey, 2001)
61 case citations
Hayduk v. City of Johnstown
580 F. Supp. 2d 429 (W.D. Pennsylvania, 2008)
23 case citations
O'Hara v. Mt. Vernon Board of Education
16 F. Supp. 2d 868 (S.D. Ohio, 1998)
21 case citations
Dotson v. BRP U.S. Inc.
520 F.3d 703 (Seventh Circuit, 2008)
18 case citations
Santiago v. Department of Transportation
50 F. Supp. 3d 136 (D. Connecticut, 2014)
17 case citations
George v. Associated Stationers
932 F. Supp. 1012 (N.D. Ohio, 1996)
16 case citations
Holmes v. E.Spire Communications, Inc.
135 F. Supp. 2d 657 (D. Maryland, 2001)
13 case citations
Joan Sherfel v. Reggie Newson
768 F.3d 561 (Sixth Circuit, 2014)
8 case citations
Routes v. Henderson
58 F. Supp. 2d 959 (S.D. Indiana, 1999)
8 case citations
Highlands Hospital Corp. v. Preece
323 S.W.3d 357 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 2010)
7 case citations
Stimpson v. United Parcel Service
351 F. App'x 42 (Sixth Circuit, 2009)
6 case citations
Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees v. CSX Transportation, Inc.
478 F.3d 814 (Seventh Circuit, 2007)
6 case citations
Cox v. Autozone, Inc.
990 F. Supp. 1369 (M.D. Alabama, 1998)
5 case citations
Nathan Cundiff v. Lenawee Stamping Corporation
597 F. App'x 299 (Sixth Circuit, 2015)
5 case citations
Rodney Harrell v. United States Postal Service
415 F.3d 700 (Seventh Circuit, 2005)
4 case citations
Alaska Airlines, Inc. v. Oregon Bureau of Labor
884 F. Supp. 393 (D. Oregon, 1995)
4 case citations
Breckenridge O'Fallon, Inc. v. Teamsters Union Local No. 682
664 F.3d 1230 (Eighth Circuit, 2012)
4 case citations
Parrish v. ARC of Morris County, LLC
193 F. Supp. 3d 425 (D. New Jersey, 2016)
4 case citations

Source Credit

History

(Pub. L. 103–3, title IV, §402, Feb. 5, 1993, 107 Stat. 26.)

Editorial Notes

Editorial Notes

References in Text
This Act, referred to in text, is Pub. L. 103–3, Feb. 5, 1993, 107 Stat. 6, known as the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, which enacted this chapter, sections 60m and 60n of Title 2, The Congress, and sections 6381 to 6387 of Title 5, Government Organization and Employees, amended section 2105 of Title 5, and enacted provisions set out as notes under section 2601 of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 2601 of this title and Tables.

Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries

Effective Date
Section effective 6 months after Feb. 5, 1993, see section 405(b)(1) of Pub. L. 103–3, set out as a note under section 2601 of this title.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
29 U.S.C. § 2652, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/usc/29/2652.