29 C.F.R. § 1601.11
Charges by members of the Commission
(a) Any member of the Commission may file a charge with the Commission. Such charge shall be in writing and signed and shall be verified.
(b) A Commissioner who files a charge under paragraph (a) of this section may withdraw the charge with the consent of the Commission. The Commission may withdraw any charge filed under paragraph (a) of this section by a Commissioner who is no longer holding office when it determines that the purposes of title VII, the ADA, GINA, or the PWFA are no longer served by processing the charge. Commissioner charges may not be withdrawn pursuant to this section after a determination as to reasonable cause has been made. This paragraph does not apply to a charge filed by a Commissioner which is on behalf of a person claiming to be aggrieved within the meaning of § 1601.7 unless such person submits a written request for withdrawal to the Commission.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 74
cases, 1968–2017 · leading case: Celia SANCHEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Stand. BRANDS, INC., Defendant-Appellee, 431 F.2d 455 (5th Cir. 1970).
Celia SANCHEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Stand. BRANDS, INC., Defendant-Appellee, 431 F.2d 455 (5th Cir. 1970). “Beyond these basics the Act is silent with respect to the details of filing a charge of discrimination. The Commission, however, has issued a series of regulations concerning the filing of charges.”
Fed. Express Corp. v. Holowecki, 552 U.S. 389 (2008). “Although the "Charge Questionnaire" form is dated "Test 10/94," and is the only questionnaire form included in the Compliance Manual, it was not the form respondent used. Her intake questionnaire form was dated 1987.”
Harry Daniel HICKS, Appellant, v. ABT Assocs., INC., Appellee, 572 F.2d 960 (3rd Cir. 1978). “” 29 C.F.R. § 1601.11 (b) (1976). Plaintiff during his deposition was asked whether the two charges he filed with the EEOC were all the pleadings filed with that agency.”
Love v. Pullman Co., 404 U.S. 522 (1972). “2 Title 29 CFR §1601.11 (b) (1971) provides: “[A] charge is deemed filed when the Commission receives from the person aggrieved a written statement sufficiently precise to identify the parties and to describe generally the action or practices complained of.”
Frank I. Ramirez, Appellant, v. Nat'l Distillers & Chem. Corp., Appellee, 586 F.2d 1315 (9th Cir. 1978). “EEOC regulations provide that: "(a) charge may be amended to cure technical defects or omissions, including failure to swear to the charge, or to clarify and amplify allegations made therein, and such amendments alleging additional acts which constitute unlawful employment…”
Shirley C. Shehadeh v. Chesapeake & Potomac Tel. Co. of Maryland, 595 F.2d 711 (D.C. Cir. 1978). “29 C.F.R. § 1601.11 (1977). 85 . Laffey v.”
Georgia Power Co. v. Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n, 412 F.2d 462 (5th Cir. 1969). “04, at 523 (1958): The most important characteristic of pleadings in the administrative process is their unimportance.”
Margaret PRICE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sw. BELL Tel. Co., Defendant-Appellee, 687 F.2d 74 (5th Cir. 1982). “Prior to passage of the 1972 amendments to Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, we rejected arguments that charges must be formal and sworn to within the applicable time period, despite the statutory requirement that private *78 complainants file a written charge under oath,…”
Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Union Pac. R.R., 867 F.3d 843 (7th Cir. 2017). “While acknowledging the EEOC’s ability to continue an investigatory role by either intervening in an individual’s lawsuit, by pursuing discovery or by filing a Commissioner’s charge, , 29 C.F.R. § 1601.11 , the Fifth Circuit did not explain why the EEOG’s authority to…”
Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n, Applicant-appellee, v. Bay Shipbuilding Corp., Respondent-appellant, 668 F.2d 304 (7th Cir. 1981). “Assuming that this Section protects information only until institution of proceedings (see 29 C.F.R. § 1601.11 (1981)), Bay could at that point move for a protective order under Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”
Mrs. Lorena W. Weeks v. S. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., S. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Mrs. Lorena W. Weeks, 408 F.2d 228 (5th Cir. 1969). “29 C.F.R. 1601.11(b) provides: “Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (a) of this section, a charge is deemed filed when the Commission receives from the person aggrieved a written statement sufficiently precise to identify the parties and to describe generally the action…”
James B. King, Dir., Off. of Pers. Mgmt. v. Phillip G. Hillen & Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 21 F.3d 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1994). “A EEOC Guideline 29 C.F.R. § 1601.11 (a) Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, at 42 U.”
— 29 C.F.R. § 1601.11(a) — 1 case
Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n, Petitioner-appellant, v. Dean Witter Co., Inc., Respondent-appellee, 643 F.2d 1334 (9th Cir. 1980).
— 29 C.F.R. § 1601.11(b) — 11 cases
Celia SANCHEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Stand. BRANDS, INC., Defendant-Appellee, 431 F.2d 455 (5th Cir. 1970). “Beyond these basics the Act is silent with respect to the details of filing a charge of discrimination. The Commission, however, has issued a series of regulations concerning the filing of charges.”
Frank I. Ramirez, Appellant, v. Nat'l Distillers & Chem. Corp., Appellee, 586 F.2d 1315 (9th Cir. 1978). “EEOC regulations provide that: "(a) charge may be amended to cure technical defects or omissions, including failure to swear to the charge, or to clarify and amplify allegations made therein, and such amendments alleging additional acts which constitute unlawful employment…”
Mrs. Lorena W. Weeks v. S. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., S. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Mrs. Lorena W. Weeks, 408 F.2d 228 (5th Cir. 1969). “29 C.F.R. 1601.11(b) provides: “Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (a) of this section, a charge is deemed filed when the Commission receives from the person aggrieved a written statement sufficiently precise to identify the parties and to describe generally the action…”
Washington v. T. G. & Y. Stores Co., 324 F. Supp. 849 (W.D. La. 1971).
White v. Motor Wheel Corp., 236 N.W.2d 709 (Mich. Ct. App. 1975).
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.