29 C.F.R. § 1601.10
Withdrawal of a charge by a person claiming to be aggrieved
A charge filed by or on behalf of a person claiming to be aggrieved may be withdrawn only by the person claiming to be aggrieved and only with the consent of the Commission. The Commission hereby delegates authority to District Directors, Field Directors, Area Directors, Local Directors, the Director of the Office of Field Programs and the Director of Field Management Programs, or their designees, to grant consent to a request to withdraw a charge, other than a Commissioner charge, where the withdrawal of the charge will not defeat the purposes of title VII, the ADA, GINA, or the PWFA.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 22
cases, 1972–2015 · leading case: McPherson v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 457 F.3d 211 (2d Cir. 2006).
McPherson v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 457 F.3d 211 (2d Cir. 2006). “* * * For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.”
Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n, Appellant, v. Gen. Elec. Co., Appellee, 532 F.2d 359 (4th Cir. 1976). “6 ; 29 CFR § 1601.10 . . 29 CFR § 1601.8 . . 29 CFR § 1601.”
Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Frank’s Nursery & Crafts, Inc., Defendant-appellee, 177 F.3d 448 (6th Cir. 1999). “See 29 C.F.R. § 1601.10 (1998). If the EEOC denies an individual consent to withdraw her charge, the EEOC may proceed under Title VII to prosecute its own civil action against an employer on the basis of that charge.”
Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Goodyear Aerospace Corp., 813 F.2d 1539 (9th Cir. 1987). “29 C.F.R. § 1601.10 . If the employee’s private settlement barred the EEOC from litigating its enforcement action, the employer might be emboldened not to conciliate with the EEOC in the hope of arranging a favorable side settlement with its employee.”
Lewis v. Norfolk S. Corp., 271 F. Supp. 2d 807 (E.D. Va. 2003). “There is nothing authorizing reconsideration of a withdrawn charge, covered under 29 C.F.R. § 1601.10 , once the EEOC has accepted the withdrawal and terminated proceedings.”
In Re Pincombe, 256 B.R. 774 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2000). “The withdrawal of a discrimination charge is governed by the Code of Federal Regulations which provides: “A charge filed by or on behalf of a person claiming to be aggrieved may be withdrawn only by the person claiming to be aggrieved and only with the consent of the Commission.”
Hightower v. Roman, Inc., 190 F. Supp. 2d 740 (D.N.J. 2002). “See 29 C.F.R. § 1601.10 . Defendant’s apparent concerns regarding Plaintiffs’ “deliberate attempt” to bypass the administrative mechanism mandated by Congress and the EEOC’s failure to process or investigate Plaintiffs’ charges are unfounded.”
Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Randstad, 685 F.3d 433 (4th Cir. 2012). “See 29 C.F.R. § 1601.10 (“A charge filed by or on behalf of a person claiming to be aggrieved may be withdrawn only by the person claiming to be aggrieved and only with the consent of the Commission.”
Banks v. Rockwell Int'l North Am. Aircraft Operations, 666 F. Supp. 1053 (S.D. Ohio 1987). “Furthermore, “A charge filed by or on behalf of a person claiming to be aggrieved may be withdrawn only by the person claiming to be aggrieved and only with the consent of the Commissioner_” 29 C.F.R. § 1601.10 . (Emphasis added.) *1058 Section 1601.”
Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Watkins Motor Lines, Inc., 553 F.3d 593 (7th Cir. 2009). “The EEOC’s regulation says that “[a] charge filed by or on behalf of a person claiming to be aggrieved may be withdrawn only by the person claiming to be aggrieved and only with the consent of the Commission .”
Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Citicorp Diners Club, Inc., 985 F.2d 1036 (10th Cir. 1993). “29 C.F.R. § 1601.10 provides that a charge filed by or on behalf of a person claiming to be aggrieved may be withdrawn only by the person claiming to be aggrieved and only with the consent of the Commission.”
Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Waffle House, Inc., 193 F.3d 805 (4th Cir. 1999). “And even when the EEOC has determined to bring suit in its own name, the charging party retains “the right to intervene in a civil action brought by the Commission” if the individual believes that the EEOC will not adequately represent his interests as it pursues its public…”
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.