(a) Individual and class complaints of employment discrimination and retaliation prohibited by title VII (discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex and national origin), the ADEA (discrimination on the basis of age when the aggrieved individual is at least 40 years of age), the Rehabilitation Act (discrimination on the basis of disability), the Equal Pay Act (sex-based wage discrimination), GINA (discrimination on the basis of genetic information), or the PWFA (discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions) shall be processed in accordance with this part. Complaints alleging retaliation prohibited by these statutes are considered to be complaints of discrimination for purposes of this part.
(b) This part applies to:
(1) Military departments as defined in 5 U.S.C. 102;
(2) Executive agencies as defined in 5 U.S.C. 105;
(3) The United States Postal Service, Postal Rate Commission and Tennessee Valley Authority;
(4) All units of the judicial branch of the Federal government having positions in the competitive service, except for complaints under the Rehabilitation Act;
(5) The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Commissioned Corps;
(6) The Government Printing Office except for complaints under the Rehabilitation Act; and
(7) The Smithsonian Institution.
(c) Within the covered departments, agencies and units, this part applies to all employees and applicants for employment, and to all employment policies or practices affecting employees or applicants for employment including employees and applicants who are paid from nonappropriated funds, unless otherwise excluded.
(d) This part does not apply to:
(1) Uniformed members of the military departments referred to in paragraph (b)(1) of this section:
(2) Employees of the General Accounting Office;
(3) Employees of the Library of Congress;
(4) Aliens employed in positions, or who apply for positions, located outside the limits of the United States; or
(5) Equal Pay Act complaints of employees whose services are performed within a foreign country or certain United States territories as provided in 29 U.S.C. 213(f).
[57 FR 12646, Apr. 10, 1992, as amended at 64 FR 37655, July 12, 1999; 74 FR 63984, Dec. 7, 2009; 77 FR 43504, July 25, 2012; 89 FR 11171, Feb. 14, 2024]
Notes of Decisions
James Coleman v. Elaine C. Duke, 867 F.3d 204 (D.C. Cir. 2017).
· cites it 4× “See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.103 (a). To start the administrative process, an employee must contact an equal employment opportunity (“EEO”) Counselor at his employing agency within 45 days of the alleged discriminatory conduct.”
Devon Shelley v. Pete Geren, 666 F.3d 599 (9th Cir. 2012).
· cites it 2× “29 C.F.R. §§ 1614.103 , 1614.105(a)(1).1 We have stated that although the regulatory pre-filing exhaustion requirement at § 1614.”
Gary Jackson v. Thomas Modly, 949 F.3d 763 (D.C. Cir. 2020).
· cites it 2× “The EEO Office dismissed his complaint under 29 C.F.R. § 1614.103 (d)(1), stating that uniformed military personnel of any branch of the armed forces are not covered by Title VII.”
Hollingsworth v. Duff, 444 F. Supp. 2d 61 (D.D.C. 2006).
· cites it 3× “Hollingsworth next argues that 29 C.F.R. § 1614.103 , which she concedes “specifically notes that the Rehabilitation Act is not available to the judicial branch,” is an errant regulation that is invalid for being inconsistent with the Rehabilitation Act.”
Bowers v. Wynne, 615 F.3d 455 (6th Cir. 2010).
· cites it 4× “2000) (citing cases); 29 C.F.R. § 1614.103 (d)(1). C. Sixth Circuit Precedent This Court has never considered claims brought under Title VII or the Rehabilitation Act by an ART.”
Licudine v. Winter, 603 F. Supp. 2d 129 (D.D.C. 2009).
· cites it 4× “Therefore, your client’s claim of discrimination is hereby dismissed for failure to state a claim in accordance with 29 C.F.R. 1614.103, 29 C.F.R. 1614.104 and 29 C.”
Jane DiCocco v. Merrick Garland, 18 F.4th 406 (4th Cir. 2021).
· cites it 3× “Contrary to the dissent’s position, nothing in 29 C.F.R. § 1614.103 (c) authorizes disparate-impact claims.”
Jane DiCocco v. Merrick Garland, 52 F.4th 588 (4th Cir. 2022).
· cites it 2× “Contrary to the dissent’s position, nothing in 29 C.F.R. § 1614.103 (c) authorizes disparate-impact claims.”
Wilson v. U.S. Dep't of Transp., 759 F. Supp. 2d 55 (D.D.C. 2011).
· cites it 2× “The instant Complaint alleges fourteen Counts: Count I — Violation of EEOC Regulations at 29 C.F.R. §§ 1614.103 , .106(a), & .107(a)(1); Count II — Conspiracy to violate civil rights under 42 U.”
Brown v. USA, 227 F.3d 295 (5th Cir. 2000).
· cites it 3× “§ 2000e-16(b), issued 29 C.F.R. § 1614.103 (d)(1), which provides in relevant part; (a)' Individual and class complaints of employment discrimination and retaliation prohibited by Title VII .”
Mohamed Al-Saffy v. Thomas Vilsack, 827 F.3d 85 (D.C. Cir. 2016).
“§ 2000e-16; 29 C.F.R. § 1614.103 (c). For ease of reference, this opinion uses "employee” to cover all of those groups.”
Veitch, D. Philip v. England, Gordon R., 471 F.3d 124 (D.C. Cir. 2006).
“See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.103 (d)(1) (2006) (excluding uniformed members of the military departments from Title VII's anti-discrimination provisions).”
— 29 C.F.R. § 1614.103(c) — 2 cases
Licudine v. Winter, 603 F. Supp. 2d 129 (D.D.C. 2009).
“Therefore, your client’s claim of discrimination is hereby dismissed for failure to state a claim in accordance with 29 C.F.R. 1614.103, 29 C.F.R. 1614.104 and 29 C.”
— 29 C.F.R. § 1614.103(d)(1) — 2 cases
Brown v. USA, 227 F.3d 295 (5th Cir. 2000).
“§ 2000e-16(b), issued 29 C.F.R. § 1614.103 (d)(1), which provides in relevant part; (a)' Individual and class complaints of employment discrimination and retaliation prohibited by Title VII .”
— 29 C.F.R. § 1614.103(d)(4) — 1 case
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.