section 100

Citation: section 100
Parent Document: Gonzalez v. Lee County Housing Authority, 161 F.3d 1290 (1998)
Jurisdiction: United States (federal)
Effective Date: 1998-12-02
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/73387/gonzalez-v-lee-county-housing-authority/ ↗

Full Text

1,385 chars

Cir. 1991) (holding that OSHA regulation placed employers on notice of
federal construction requirement; stating that “[w]hether or not
employers are in fact aware of each OSHA regulation and fully understand
it, they are charged with this knowledge and are responsible for
compliance”).
42
  The special concurrence also expresses “doubt that a regulation which
on its face purports only to be an executive department’s ‘interpretation
of [unlawful] conduct’ can be the basis of clearly established law.”
Special Concurrence at __.      The regulation at issue in this case,
however, is more than a mere interpretation: it is binding law. See
King v. Housing Auth. of City of Huntsville, 670 F.2d 952, 954 (11th Cir.
1982) (holding that HUD has the authority to promulgate binding
regulations) (citing statute under which § 100.400 promulgated); 24
C.F.R. § 100.400(c) (“Conduct made unlawful under [§ 3617] includes, but
is not limited to, the following: [listing types of unlawful conduct].”)
(emphasis added).
43
  Indeed, § 100.400(c)(3) was patently valid because a reasonable public
official would have no reason to believe that § 100.400(c)(3) represents
an impermissible construction of § 3617 or is contrary to clearly
expressed Congressional intent. See Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural
Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 842-43, 104 S. Ct. 2778,
2781-82 (1984).

Other Sections in This Document (884)

Full Text