(a) Each charge should contain the following:
(1) The full name and contact information of the person making the charge except as provided in § 1601.7;
(2) The full name and contact information of the person against whom the charge is made, if known (hereinafter referred to as the respondent);
(3) A clear and concise statement of the facts, including pertinent dates, constituting the alleged unlawful employment practices: See § 1601.15(b);
(4) If known, the approximate number of employees of the respondent employer or the approximate number of members of the respondent labor organization, as the case may be; and
(5) A statement disclosing whether proceedings involving the alleged unlawful employment practice have been commenced before a State or local agency charged with the enforcement of fair employment practice laws and, if so, the date of such commencement and the name of the agency.
(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (a) of this section, a charge is sufficient when the Commission receives from the person making the charge a written statement sufficiently precise to identify the parties, and to describe generally the action or practices complained of. A charge may be amended to cure technical defects or omissions, including failure to verify the charge, or to clarify and amplify allegations made therein. Such amendments and amendments alleging additional acts which constitute unlawful employment practices related to or growing out of the subject matter of the original charge will relate back to the date the charge was first received. A charge that has been so amended shall not be required to be redeferred.
[42 FR 55388, Oct. 14, 1977, as amended at 85 FR 65217, Oct. 15, 2020]
Notes of Decisions
Williams v. CSX Transp. Co., 643 F.3d 502 (6th Cir. 2011).
· cites it 9× “The EEOC, in turn, has promulgated a regulation that identifies five piece of information that a charge "should" contain: (1)-(2) the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of the person making the charge and the charged entity; (3) a statement of facts describing the alleged…”
Edelman v. Lynchburg Coll., 535 U.S. 106 (2002).
· cites it 8× “Edelman replied that his November 1997 letter was a timely filed charge and that under an EEOC regulation, 29 CFR § 1601.12 (b) (1997), [2] the verification on the Form 5 related back to the letter.”
Carol Wilkerson v. Grinnell Corp., 270 F.3d 1314 (11th Cir. 2001).
· cites it 6× “29 C.F.R. § 1601.12 (a) (2000) 1 However, even if a charge does not contain the suggested information, the EEOC will deem a charge minimally sufficient when it receives from the charging party “a written statement sufficiently precise to identify the parties, and to describe…”
Mohasco Corp. v. Silver, 447 U.S. 807 (1980).
· cites it 4× “In examining this legislative history, it is important to note that the EEOC, the agency charged by *829 Congress with administering Title VII, has always treated as timely a charge filed within the 300-day period specified in § 706 (e), without regard to the 60-day deferral…”
Jones v. Needham, 856 F.3d 1284 (10th Cir. 2017).
· cites it 3× “, whether it was the intake questionnaire or the charge form — strict compliance with the EEOC’s regulations in 29 C.F.R. § 1601.12 (a) is not required “so long as the charge the Commission receives is a written statement sufficiently precise to identify the parties, and to…”
Chesnut v. Ethan Allen Retail, Inc., 971 F. Supp. 2d 1223 (N.D. Ga. 2013).
· cites it 9× “29 C.F.R. § 1601.12 (a). But to be sufficient, the regulations require charges to contain only “a written statement sufficiently precise to identify the parties, and to describe generally the action or practices complained of.”
Fed. Express Corp. v. Holowecki, 552 U.S. 389 (2008).
· cites it 2× “discrimination, the Commission will, consistent with 29 CFR 1601.12(b) and 29 CFR 1626.8(b), consider it to be a sufficient charge of discrimination under the relevant statute(s).”
Montes v. Vail Clinic, Inc., 497 F.3d 1160 (10th Cir. 2007).
· cites it 3× “8 Many circuits appear to populate some form of middle ground; while these circuits agree that a completed questionnaire must meet the EEOC’s regulations prescribing the minimum contents of a charge, see 29 C.F.R. § 1601.12 (minimum contents of a Title YII charge); id.”
— 29 C.F.R. § 1601.12(a) — 5 cases
— 29 C.F.R. § 1601.12(a)(3) — 2 cases
— 29 C.F.R. § 1601.12(b) — 23 cases
Fed. Express Corp. v. Holowecki, 552 U.S. 389 (2008).
“discrimination, the Commission will, consistent with 29 CFR 1601.12(b) and 29 CFR 1626.8(b), consider it to be a sufficient charge of discrimination under the relevant statute(s).”
— 29 C.F.R. § 1601.12(b)(1) — 2 cases
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.