29 C.F.R. § 1601.20
Negotiated settlement
(a) Prior to the issuance of a determination as to reasonable cause the Commission may encourage the parties to settle the charge on terms that are mutually agreeable. District Directors, Field Directors, Area Directors, Local Directors, the Director of the Office of Field Programs, the Director of Field Management Programs, or their designees, shall have the authority to sign any settlement agreement which is agreeable to both parties. When the Commission agrees in any negotiated settlement not to process that charge further, the Commission's agreement shall be in consideration for the promises made by the other parties to the agreement. Such an agreement shall not affect the processing of any other charge, including, but not limited to, a Commissioner charge or a charge, the allegations of which are like or related to the individual allegations settled.
(b) In the alternative, the Commission may facilitate a settlement between the person claiming to be aggrieved and the respondent by permitting withdrawal of the charge pursuant to § 1601.10.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 39
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1971–2025 · leading case: Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Associated Dry Goods Corp., 449 U.S. 590 (1981).
Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Associated Dry Goods Corp., 449 U.S. 590 (1981). “29 CFR § 1601.20 (1979); EEOC Compliance Manual § 15.”
Karen Balas v. Huntington Ingalls Indus., 711 F.3d 401 (4th Cir. 2013). “29 C.F.R. § 1601.20 . If the EEOC finds “reasonable cause to believe that the charge is true, the Commission shall endeavor to eliminate any such alleged unlawful employment practice by informal methods of conference, conciliation, and persuasion.”
Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n, 435 F. Supp. 751 (D.D.C. 1977). “” 29 C.F.R. § 1601.20 (1976). This interpretation has been uniformly adopted by courts that have considered the question.”
Munoz v. Mabus, 630 F.3d 856 (9th Cir. 2010). “The plain meaning of the text, the overarching regulatory framework, and the long-held prudential interest in narrowly construing waivers of sovereign immunity all compel this conclusion.”
Susie J. Jackson v. Richards Med. Co., 961 F.2d 575 (6th Cir. 1992). “Accordingly, we hold that the EEOC’s power to reconsider cause and no cause determinations, as established by § 1601.21 of the Commission’s regulations, is procedural in purpose and effect.”
Tia J. Horton, & Karen Brooks, Proposed Intervenor v. Jackson Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 343 F.3d 897 (7th Cir. 2003). “That is only a small percentage of the total charges filed with the agency, but many other charges are disposed of by negotiated settlements before the Commission completes its investigation and makes a “reasonable cause” determination.”
Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Fed. Express Corp., 558 F.3d 842 (9th Cir. 2009). “27 , in which the charging party may intervene as a matter of right, 42 U.”
Aaron MOSLEY Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ST. LOUIS Sw. Ry., D/B/A Cotton Belt Route, Defendant-Appellee, 634 F.2d 942 (5th Cir. 1981). “” 29 C.F.R. 1601.20. 3 When acting in this capacity, an EEOC specialist cannot reasonably be expected to protect discrimination claimants from improvidently relinquishing their Title VII rights, including the right to assert their claims of discrimination in a federal court.”
Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. California Psychiatric Transitions, Inc., 725 F. Supp. 2d 1100 (E.D. Cal. 2010). “See 29 C.F.R. § 1601.20 (“The Commission shall receive information concerning alleged violations of title VII, the ADA, or GINA from any person.”
Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n, Appellant, v. The Henry Beck Co., Appellee, 729 F.2d 301 (4th Cir. 1984). “Specifically, 29 C.F.R. § 1601.20 provides that “[p]rior to the issuance of a determination as to reasonable cause the Commission may encourage the parties to settle the charge on terms that are mutually agreeable____ The Commission shall limit its undertaking in such…”
Pamela E. Long v. Ringling Bros.-Barnum & Bailey Combined Shows, Inc., Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n, Amicus Curiae, 9 F.3d 340 (4th Cir. 1993). “See 29 C.F.R. § 1601.20 (1992). The initial conciliation agreement the Commission drafted offered Long back pay plus interest, the bonus paid to the successful applicant, the value of the lodging and rental car furnished him, and $5,000 in attorney’s fees.”
Sherman v. Stand. Rate Data Serv., Inc., 709 F. Supp. 1433 (N.D. Ill. 1989). “1982) for the proposition that 29 C.F.R. 1601.20(a), the regulation allowing for predetermination agreements, “does not permit court involvement predicated on breach of a settlement agreement, absent reasonable cause determination and good faith attempts at conciliation,” see…”
— 29 C.F.R. § 1601.20(a) — 4 cases
Sherman v. Stand. Rate Data Serv., Inc., 709 F. Supp. 1433 (N.D. Ill. 1989). “1982) for the proposition that 29 C.F.R. 1601.20(a), the regulation allowing for predetermination agreements, “does not permit court involvement predicated on breach of a settlement agreement, absent reasonable cause determination and good faith attempts at conciliation,” see…”
28 Fair empl.prac.cas. 393, 28 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 32,522 Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Pierce Packing Co. & Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North Am., Afl-Cio, Local Union No. 560, 669 F.2d 605 (9th Cir. 1982).
Lydia Cook & Terrie Owens v. City of Pomona, a Mun. Corp., 70 F.3d 1277 (9th Cir. 1995).
Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Pierce Packing Co., 669 F.2d 605 (9th Cir. 1982).
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.