29 C.F.R. § 1601.30
Notices to be posted
(a) Every employer, employment agency, labor organization, and joint labor-management committee controlling an apprenticeship or other training program that has an obligation under title VII, the ADA, GINA, or the PWFA shall post and keep posted in conspicuous places upon its premises notices in an accessible format, to be prepared or approved by the Commission, describing the applicable provisions of title VII, the ADA, GINA, and the PWFA. Such notice must be posted in prominent and accessible places where notices to employees, applicants and members are customarily maintained.
(b) Section 711(b) of Title VII and the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act, as amended, make failure to comply with this section punishable by a fine of not more than $698 for each separate offense.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 20
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1969–2025 · leading case: McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973).
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). “The Act does not restrict a complainant’s right to sue to those charges as to which the Commission has made findings of reasonable cause, and we will not engraft on the statute a requirement which may inhibit the review of *799 claims of employment discrimination in the federal…”
Dorothy P. Robinson v. Lorillard Corp. (Two Cases), 444 F.2d 791 (4th Cir. 1971). “29 C.F.R. § 1601.30 . This regulation has been upheld as a reasonable interpretation of the statute in Local 189, United Papermakers & Paperworkers, AFL-CIO, CLC v.”
Gilbert v. Gen. Elec. Co., 375 F. Supp. 367 (E.D. Va. 1974). “Defendant argues that its conclusion in 1965 that its pregnancy exclusion policy did not violate Title VII was well founded by virtue of publication in certain of the labor services, namely Commerce Clearing House Employment Practices, of an opinion letter by the EEOC General…”
Mary Burke Sprogis v. United Air Lines, Inc., 444 F.2d 1194 (7th Cir. 1971). “8407; 29 CFR § 1601.30 . This agency interpretation of the operative statutory language reasonably confines reliance justified under Section 713(b) to considered official expressions of opinion taking two specifically defined forms.”
Weisbord v. Michigan State Univ., 495 F. Supp. 1347 (W.D. Mich. 1980). “The Commission itself does not consider the absence of a “reasonable cause” determination as providing employer immunity from similar charges in a federal court, 29 CFR § 1601.30 , and the courts of appeal have held that, in view of the large volume of complaints before the…”
Schele v. Porter Mem'l Hosp., 198 F. Supp. 2d 979 (N.D. Ind. 2001). “The Plaintiff presented the following explanation to the EEOC in her Charge: I did not file a charge before now because (i) I was informed by the prosecuting attorney not to initiate any civil action until the rape charge was disposed of, and (ii) I was unaware of the deadline…”
Llewellyn v. Celanese Corp., 693 F. Supp. 369 (W.D.N.C. 1988). “The EEOC had promulgated prior to 1983 the text of the required notice at 29 C.F.R. § 1601.30 . That regulation provides in pertinent part: “(a) Every employer .”
Yott v. North Am. Rockwell Corp., 428 F. Supp. 763 (C.D. Cal. 1977). “In 29 C.F.R. § 1601.30 the EEOC set forth a procedural definition of the § 2000e-12(b) requirement that reliance must depend upon “any written interpretation or opinion of the Commission” by adopting two forms of commission opinion — 1.”
Vuyanich v. Repub. Nat'l Bank of Dallas, 409 F. Supp. 1083 (N.D. Tex. 1976). “The Act does not restrict a complainant’s right to sue to those charges as to which the Commission has made findings of reasonable cause, and we will not engraft on the statute a requirement which may inhibit the review of claims of employment discrimination in the federal…”
Local 189, United Papermakers & Paperworkers v. United States, 416 F.2d 980 (5th Cir. 1969). “" 29 C.F.R. § 1601.30 . The statements that Crown relied upon to its supposed detriment in this case do not fall within either of the defined categories.”
Ostapowicz v. Johnson Bronze Co., 369 F. Supp. 522 (W.D. Pa. 1973). “The Commission itself does not consider the absence of a ‘reasonable cause’ determination as providing employer immunity from similar charges in a federal court, 29 CFR § 1601.30 , and the courts of appeal have held that, in view of the large volume of complaints before the…”
Stastny v. S. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 458 F. Supp. 314 (W.D.N.C. 1978). “The Commission’s procedural regulations provide, 29 CFR 1601.30: “Only (a) a letter entitled ‘opinion letter’ .”
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.