C.F.R. » Title 29 » CHAPTER XIV—EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION › PART 1614—FEDERAL SECTOR EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY › Subpart A—Agency Program To Promote Equal Employment Opportunity

29 C.F.R. § 1614.101

General policy

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

(a) It is the policy of the Government of the United States to provide equal opportunity in employment for all persons, to prohibit discrimination in employment because of race; color; religion; sex; national origin; age; disability; genetic information; or pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions; and to promote the full realization of equal employment opportunity through a continuing affirmative program in each agency.

(b) No person shall be subject to retaliation for opposing any practice made unlawful by title VII of the Civil Rights Act (title VII) (42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq.), the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) (29 U.S.C. 621 et seq.), the Equal Pay Act (29 U.S.C. 206(d)), the Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. 791 et seq.), the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) (42 U.S.C. 2000ff et seq.), or the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) (42 U.S.C. 2000gg et seq.) or for participating in any stage of administrative or judicial proceedings under those statutes.

[89 FR 11171, Feb. 14, 2024]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 86 cases (20 in the last 5 years), 1994–2026 · leading case: Joey L. Mitchell v. Glenn Chapman
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Joey L. Mitchell v. Glenn Chapman (2003) ca6 “It must be acknowledged, however, that the stringent timing requirements of 29 C.F.R. § 1614.101 , et seq., present potential perils for a party alleging multiple claims in separate administrative fora.”
Kelly v. New York State Office of Mental Health (2016) nyed “3, 2006) (citing 29 C.F.R. § 1614.101 ), report and recommendation adopted, 2006 WL 1594481 (S.”
Riaz Baqir, M.D. v. Anthony J. Principi, Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs (2006) ca4 “See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.101 (b) (providing that "[n]o person shall be subject to retaliation for opposing any practice made unlawful by title VII of the Civil Rights Act [or] the Age Discrimination in Employment Act .”
Collins v. City of New York (2016) nysd “29 C.F.R. § 1614.101 (b); see also Sands v.”
Teal v. Potter (2009) ca7 “6 ; 29 C.F.R. §§ 1614.101 et seq., and that employees then have the right to appeal that determination to the EEOC or file a complaint in federal court).”
Cristobal D. Ramirez v. Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation (2012) ca11 “See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.101 et seq. These regulations provide, inter alia, that an aggrieved employee must “initiate contact with [an EEO] Counselor within 45 days of the date of the matter alleged to be discriminatory.”
Kathy J. Smith v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General of the United States (2006) ca7 “6 ; 29 C.F.R. §§ 1614.101 et seq. The agency offices created pursuant to this requirement are known as “agency EEO office[s].”
Munoz v. Mabus (2010) ca9 “§§ 2000e-3(a), 2000e-16, and of 29 C.F.R. § 1614.101 (b). The district court held a hearing on the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment, at which the court also raised sua sponte whether it had subject matter jurisdiction over the breach of contract claim.”
Carroll v. England (2004) dcd “” 29 C.F.R. § 1614.101 (a)(1). Carroll does not dispute the fact that she failed to exhaust her administrative remedies with regard to Counts III and TV.”
Scott v. Potter (2006) ca6 “” 29 C.F.R. § 1614.101 (b). Moreover, Scott is an employee of the Service, which has a unique relationship with the federal government.”
Villescas v. Abraham (2002) ca10 “at 4 (citing 29 C.F.R. § 1614.101 (statement of general policy)).”
William D. Morris v. Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense (2005) ca3 “See 29 C.F.R. §§ 1614.101 et seq. A federal employee must first bring a claim of discrimination on grounds of disability to an internal complaints process within the employing agency.”
Show all 86 citing cases →
— 29 C.F.R. § 1614.101(b) — 1 case
Tshudy v. Potter (2004) nmd
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.