{"id":"LAW-087","kind":"law","level":"law","jurisdiction":"","state":"","metro":"","industry":"","agency":"","eco":"","issuer":"Supreme Court of the United States","authority":"Public Employees Retirement System of Ohio v. Betts, 492 U.S. 158 (1989)","instrument":"Public Employees Retirement System of Ohio v. Betts, 492 U.S. 158 (1989)","title":"Public Employees Retirement System of Ohio v. Betts, 492 U.S. 158 (1989)","dateIssued":"1989-06-23","effective":"","end":"","startDate":"1989-06-23","endDate":"","quarters":[],"types":[],"addressees":[],"clause":"Rather, this original version of the cost-justification rule was nothing more than a safe harbor, a nonexclusive objective test for employers to use in determining whether they could be certain of qualifying for the sec. 4(f)(2) exemption. It was not until 1979 that this regulatory safe harbor was transformed into the exclusive means of escaping classification... (Betts, 492 U.S. at 172)... The language of the Notice speaks of sufficient--though not necessary--conditions in which it \u0022will be deemed\u0022 that more than a nominal portion of a business\u0027s operations have been suspended.... That is a quintessential safe harbor. for Appellees at 37-38)","enforcement":"","functions":[],"notes":"The United States\u0027 own authority for the meaning of \u0027safe harbor\u0027 (Br. for Appellees at 37, 45).","sourceUrl":"https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep492/usrep492158/usrep492158.pdf","snapshot":"","fileExists":true,"fileBytes":1153254,"grade":"primary","character":"case","description":"","collection":"LEG-A","url":"/library/LAW-087","exhibitUrl":"/exhibit/LAW-087","citation":"Supreme Court of the United States, Public Employees Retirement System of Ohio v. Betts, 492 U.S. 158 (1989) (June 23, 1989) (Ex. LAW-087)","stateName":"","related":[]}