29 C.F.R. § 1601.76
Right of party to request review
The Commission shall notify the parties whose cases are to be processed by the designated, certified FEP agency of their right, if aggrieved by the agency's final action, to request review by the Commission within 15 days of that action. The Commission, on receipt of a request for review, shall conduct such review in accord with the procedures set forth in the Substantial Weight Review Procedures.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1983–2025 · leading case: Jocelyn Riley v. Am. Fam. Mut. Ins. Co., 881 F.2d 368 (7th Cir. 1989).
Jocelyn Riley v. Am. Fam. Mut. Ins. Co., 881 F.2d 368 (7th Cir. 1989). “Judge Shabaz dismissed this action without prejudice based on his understanding that plaintiff could refile her Title VII action in federal court after the ERD rendered a final administrative decision and after plaintiff sought EEOC review of that decision pursuant to 29 C.F.R.…”
Black v. Brown Univ., 555 F. Supp. 880 (D.R.I. 1983). “Under EEOC regulations, the state agency’s actions and findings will be adopted by the EEOC unless (i) review is requested within fifteen days next following the conclusion of state action, 29 C.”
Connecticut Jud. Branch v. Gilbert, 343 Conn. 90 (Conn. 2022). “But see 29 C.F.R. §§1601.76 and 1601.77 (2020) (providing exceptions when review is undertaken).”
Williams v. Crown Liquors of Broward, Inc., 851 F. Supp. 2d 1332 (S.D. Fla. 2012). “”)); 29 C.F.R. § 1601.76 (“The Commission shall notify the parties whose cases are to be processed by the designated, certified FEP agency of them right, if aggrieved by the agency’s final action, to request review by the Commission within 15 days of that action.”
Brantley v. Red River Waste Solutions LP (N.D. Ind. 2021). “Defendant first relies on 29 C.F.R. § 1601.76 . This regulation requires that the EEOC advise parties appearing before administrative bodies like Metro of their right to have the EEOC review the administrative decision.”
Murphy v. Cleveland Cnty. (W.D.N.C. 2022). “After receiving the No Cause Determination, Plaintiff sought and received an EEOC Substantial Weight Review of the NCOAH No Cause Determination, as permitted by 29 C.F.R. § 1601.76 . After a “thorough review of the investigative file,” the EEOC Acting District Director,…”
Sagaitis, Katie v. West Bend Ins. Co. (W.D. Wis. 2025). “West Bend contends that Sagaitis failed to exhaust that claim because she withdrew it from the ERD after the ERD issued a no-probable-cause determination, and she did not request EEOC review within 15 days as required by 29 C.F.R. § 1601.76 . Sagaitis doesn’t dispute that she…”
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.