C.F.R. » Title 29 » CHAPTER XIV—EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION › PART 1608—AFFIRMATIVE ACTION APPROPRIATE UNDER TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964, AS AMENDED

29 C.F.R. § 1608.8

Adherence to court order

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

Parties are entitled to rely on orders of courts of competent jurisdiction. If adherence to an Order of a United States District Court or other court of competent jurisdiction, whether entered by consent or after contested litigation, in a case brought to enforce a Federal, State, or local equal employment opportunity law or regulation, is the basis of a complaint filed under title VII or is alleged to be the justification for an action which is challenged under title VII, the Commission will investigate to determine:

(a) Whether such an Order exists and

(b) Whether adherence to the affirmative action plan which is part of the Order was the basis of the complaint or justification.

If the Commission so finds, it will issue a determination of no reasonable cause. The Commission interprets title VII to mean that actions taken pursuant to the direction of a Court Order cannot give rise to liability under title VII.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1988–2008 · leading case: In Re Birmingham Reverse Discrimination Emp. Litig., 833 F.2d 1492 (11th Cir. 1988).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In Re Birmingham Reverse Discrimination Emp. Litig., 833 F.2d 1492 (11th Cir. 1988). · cites it 2× “Here, the relevant EEOC regulation, 29 C.F.R. § 1608.8 , was published in the Federal Register as part of a set of guidelines promulgated by the EEOC to "clarify and harmonize the principles of Title VII.”
Martinez v. City of St. Louis, 539 F.3d 857 (8th Cir. 2008). “2d 601 (1981); 29 C.F.R. § 1608.8 (b) (the EEOC “interprets title VII to mean that actions taken pursuant to the direction of a Court Order cannot give rise to liability”).”
Martin v. Wilks, 490 U.S. 755 (1989). · cites it 4× “" 29 CFR § 1608.8 (1989). [30] Assuming that the District Court's findings of fact were not clearly erroneous — which of course is a matter that is not before us — it seems perfectly clear that its judgment should have been affirmed.”
Michael Martinez v. City of St. Louis (8th Cir. 2008). “1064 (1981); 29 C.F.R. § 1608.8 (b) (the EEOC “interprets title VII to mean that actions taken pursuant to the direction of a Court Order cannot give rise to liability”).”
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.