29 C.F.R. § 1601.14
Service of charge or notice of charge
(a) Within ten days after the filing of a charge in the appropriate Commission office, the Commission shall serve respondent the charge by digital transmission, by mail, or in person, except when it is determined that providing the charge would impede the law enforcement functions of the Commission. Where the charge is not provided, the respondent will be served with a notice of the charge within ten days after the filing of the charge. The notice shall include the date, place and circumstances of the alleged unlawful employment practice. Where appropriate, the notice may include the identity of the person or organization filing the charge.
(b) 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, are hereby delegated the authority to issue the notice described in paragraph (a) of this section.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 38
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1976–2025 · leading case: Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist. v. Breeden, 532 U.S. 268 (2001).
Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist. v. Breeden, 532 U.S. 268 (2001). “And second, if one presumes she knew about it, one must also presume that she (or her predecessor) knew almost two years earlier about the protected action (filing of the EEOC complaint) that the letter supposedly disclosed. (The complaint had been filed on August 23, 1995, and…”
Jones v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 502 F.3d 1176 (10th Cir. 2007). “Jones that it was not treating the questionnaire as a charge of discrimination and that it never notified UPS that a charge had been filed, which it ordinarily must do within ten days of the filing of a charge, see 29 C.F.R. § 1601.14 (a). But the EEOC later sent Mr.”
Karen Balas v. Huntington Ingalls Indus., 711 F.3d 401 (4th Cir. 2013). “§ 2000e-5(b); 29 C.F.R. § 1601.14 . This notice gives the employer the chance to voluntarily conduct its own investigation and attempt to resolve any discriminatory actions internally.”
Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Shell Oil Co., 466 U.S. 54 (1984). “29 CFR § 1601.14 (1983). Though the regulation contains an exception for cases in which "providing a copy of the charge would impede the law enforcement functions of the Commission," ibid.”
Carol Wilkerson v. Grinnell Corp., 270 F.3d 1314 (11th Cir. 2001). “See 29 C.F.R. § 1601.14 (a) (2000). But because EEOC regulations and practices do not adequately distinguish between intake questionnaires and charges, the EEOC often has difficulty discharging this burden.”
Harry Daniel HICKS, Appellant, v. ABT Assocs., INC., Appellee, 572 F.2d 960 (3rd Cir. 1978). “” 29 C.F.R. § 1601.14 (1976). This evidence creates an unresolved issue of the reasonableness of the investigation made by the EEOC.”
Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n, Appellant, v. Gen. Elec. Co., Appellee, 532 F.2d 359 (4th Cir. 1976). “That charge also referred to racial discrimination and has no relevance here since the EEOC’s finding of sex discrimination is based solely upon the record made in investigating Slaughter’s claim.”
Am. Ctr. for Int'l Labor Solidarity v. Fed. Ins., 518 F. Supp. 2d 163 (D.D.C. 2007). “See 29 C.F.R. §§ 1601.14 et seq. (2007). In some instances, the EEOC may require an employee claiming to be aggrieved to provide a statement that describes “each specific harm .”
Capella Univ., Inc. v. Exec. Risk Specialty Ins. Co., 617 F.3d 1040 (8th Cir. 2010). “Similarly, an EEOC complaint must be served on the alleged discriminator within ten days of its filing, 29 C.F.R. § 1601.14 , whereas the OCR apparently need not inform the alleged discriminator of the filing of a complaint or the initiation of the OCR’s preliminary…”
McCullers v. Sec'y Dept Homeland, 427 F. App'x 190 (3rd Cir. 2011). “§§ 2000e-5(b), (e)(1); 29 C.F.R. § 1601.14 (2000)). Even accepting for purposes of this appeal that the Government did not learn of McCullers’ second EEO complaint until August 9, 2005, 11 there is nothing “unduly suggestive” about the passage of time between that date and…”
Hill v. Citibank Corp., 312 F. Supp. 2d 464 (S.D.N.Y. 2004). “It argues that the charge must have been filed no earlier than July 2, 2000 because the EEOC is statutorily required to provide notice to the employer within ten days of the charge being filed.”
Hall v. Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n, 456 F. Supp. 695 (N.D. Cal. 1978). “As part of each investigation, the person making the charge on behalf of the aggrieved person, the aggrieved person, and the respondent shall each be offered an opportunity to submit a statement of its position or evidence with respect to the allegations.”
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.