C.F.R.
»
Title 29
» CHAPTER XIV—EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION › PART 1602—RECORDKEEPING AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS UNDER TITLE VII, THE ADA, GINA, AND THE PWFA › Subpart C—Recordkeeping by Employers
Any personnel or employment record made or kept by an employer (including but not necessarily limited to requests for reasonable accommodation, application forms submitted by applicants and other records having to do with hiring, promotion, demotion, transfer, lay-off or termination, rates of pay or other terms of compensation, and selection for training or apprenticeship) shall be preserved by the employer for a period of one year from the date of the making of the record or the personnel action involved, whichever occurs later. In the case of involuntary termination of an employee, the personnel records of the individual terminated shall be kept for a period of one year from the date of termination. Where a charge of discrimination has been filed, or an action brought by the Commission or the Attorney General, against an employer under title VII, the ADA, or GINA, the respondent employer shall preserve all personnel records relevant to the charge or action until final disposition of the charge or the action. The term “personnel records relevant to the charge,” for example, would include personnel or employment records relating to the aggrieved person and to all other employees holding positions similar to that held or sought by the aggrieved person and application forms or test papers completed by an unsuccessful applicant and by all other candidates for the same position as that for which the aggrieved person applied and was rejected. The date of final disposition of the charge or the action means the date of expiration of the statutory period within which the aggrieved person may bring an action in a U.S. District Court or, where an action is brought against an employer either by the aggrieved person, the Commission, or by the Attorney General, the date on which such litigation is terminated.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 3046-0040)
[37 FR 9219, May 6, 1972, as amended at 46 FR 63268, Dec. 31, 1981; 56 FR 35755, July 26, 1991; 77 FR 5398, Feb. 3, 2012; 89 FR 11170, Feb. 14, 2024; 89 FR 46021, May 28, 2024]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
113
cases (
19 in the last 5 years), 1971–2025 · leading case:
Talavera v. Shah, 638 F.3d 303 (D.C. Cir. 2011).
Talavera v. Shah, 638 F.3d 303 (D.C. Cir. 2011).
· cites it 4× “103 (b)(5) (2002), and EEOC Regulations required preservation for one year, see 29 C.F.R. § 1602.14 (1991), Streufert destroyed his interview notes in August or September 2004.”
Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Jetstream Ground Servs., Inc., 878 F.3d 960 (10th Cir. 2017).
· cites it 5× “They claimed that JetStream’s failure to maintain the original versions of the recommendations violated 29 C.F.R. § 1602.14 , which requires employers to preserve for one year all personnel or employment records that it makes or keeps and, if a discrimination charge has been…”
Camille Grosdidier v. Broad. Bd. of Governors, 709 F.3d 19 (D.C. Cir. 2013).
· cites it 3× “On March 30, 2010, she moved for an adverse inference on the ground that two panelists had destroyed their interview notes despite an EEOC regulation requiring preservation of the notes for one year, 29 C.F.R. § 1602.14 . 1 The district court refused to apply an inference in the…”
Scott v. Eastman Chem. Co., 275 F. App'x 466 (6th Cir. 2008).
· cites it 4× “2005), the 4 Scott points to 29 C.F.R. § 1602.14 (2007), which states, in relevant part: Any personnel or employment record made or kept by an employer (including.”
Yu Jung Park v. City of Chicago, 297 F.3d 606 (7th Cir. 2002).
· cites it 3× “Park alleges that the City, in bad faith, intentionally destroyed or lost portions of the following records: (1) management logs detailing disciplinary actions in the Thirteenth District; (2) FERB files for retained PPOs; (3) evaluation forms of PPOs comparable to Ms. Park; and…”
Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. LA Weight Loss, 509 F. Supp. 2d 527 (D. Maryland 2007).
· cites it 7× “§ 2000e-8(c) and the EEOC’s pursuant regulation, 29 C.F.R. § 1602.14 . Paper No. 66. On November 21, 2005, Koch entered into a settlement agreement with LAWL and voluntarily dismissed her retaliation claim with prejudice.”
Turner v. Pub. Serv. Co. of Colorado, 563 F.3d 1136 (10th Cir. 2009).
· cites it 2× “She argues that PSCo was required under 29 C.F.R. § 1602.14 to retain the interview notes “until final disposition” of Turner’s discrimination charge.”
Lombard v. MCI Telecomm. Corp., 13 F. Supp. 2d 621 (N.D. Ohio 1998).
· cites it 8× “Because MCI did not have notice that Lombard intended to bring a state law claim for spoliation of evidence, MCI is entitled to summary judgment on this claim.”
Roderick A. McGarry v. Marilyn Pielech, 108 A.3d 998 (R.I. 2015).
· cites it 5× “” During trial, plaintiff indicated that he would seek a jury instruction that, because defendant failed to preserve the records from the 1998 interview, there had been a violation of a federal regulation, 29 C.F.R. § 1602.14 (2012), 7 as well as G.”
Marguerite Hicks v. The Gates Rubber Co., 833 F.2d 1406 (10th Cir. 1987).
· cites it 2× “Prior to and during trial, Hicks vigorously objected to the introduction of the clock charts and daily reports noting her job performance and the performancé of those security guards similarly situated.”
Samuel Perez v. By the Rockies, LLC, & Duane Layton, 2023 COA 109 (Colo. Ct. App. 2023).
“2000) (the General Assembly’s intent and purpose must prevail over a literalist interpretation that leads to an absurd result); see also 29 C.F.R. § 1602.14 (2022) (records of an employment action must be kept for one year, but if a charge of discrimination has been filed, the…”
— 29 C.F.R. § 1602.14(a) — 3 cases
Marguerite Hicks v. The Gates Rubber Co., 833 F.2d 1406 (10th Cir. 1987).
“Prior to and during trial, Hicks vigorously objected to the introduction of the clock charts and daily reports noting her job performance and the performancé of those security guards similarly situated.”
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.