29 C.F.R. § 1614.106

Individual complaints

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

(a) A complaint must be filed with the agency that allegedly discriminated against the complainant.

(b) A complaint must be filed within 15 days of receipt of the notice required by § 1614.105 (d), (e) or (f).

(c) A complaint must contain a signed statement from the person claiming to be aggrieved or that person's attorney. This statement must be sufficiently precise to identify the aggrieved individual and the agency and to describe generally the action(s) or practice(s) that form the basis of the complaint. The complaint must also contain a telephone number and address where the complainant or the representative can be contacted.

(d) A complainant may amend a complaint at any time prior to the conclusion of the investigation to include issues or claims like or related to those raised in the complaint. After requesting a hearing, a complainant may file a motion with the administrative judge to amend a complaint to include issues or claims like or related to those raised in the complaint.

(e) The agency shall acknowledge receipt of a complaint or an amendment to a complaint in writing and inform the complainant of the date on which the complaint or amendment was filed. The agency shall advise the complainant in the acknowledgment of the EEOC office and its address where a request for a hearing shall be sent. Such acknowledgment shall also advise the complainant that:

(1) The complainant has the right to appeal the final action on or dismissal of a complaint; and

(2) The agency is required to conduct an impartial and appropriate investigation of the complaint within 180 days of the filing of the complaint unless the parties agree in writing to extend the time period. When a complaint has been amended, the agency shall complete its investigation within the earlier of 180 days after the last amendment to the complaint or 360 days after the filing of the original complaint, except that the complainant may request a hearing from an administrative judge on the consolidated complaints any time after 180 days from the date of the first filed complaint.

[57 FR 12646, Apr. 10, 1992, as amended at 64 FR 37656, July 12, 1999]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 380 cases (106 in the last 5 years), 1994–2026 · leading case: James Coleman v. Elaine C. Duke, 867 F.3d 204 (D.C. Cir. 2017).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

James Coleman v. Elaine C. Duke, 867 F.3d 204 (D.C. Cir. 2017). · cites it 12× “29 C.F.R. § 1614.106 (b). The agency then has 180 days to complete its investigation of the complaint and to attempt to resolve it.”

Fenyang Stewart v. Andrei Iancu, 912 F.3d 693 (4th Cir. 2019). · cites it 4× “29 C.F.R. §§ 1614.106 (e)(2) ; 1614.108(f).”

Laughlin v. Holder, 923 F. Supp. 2d 204 (D.D.C. 2013). · cites it 5× “See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.106 (d); see also Weber v.”

Rann, Robert W. v. Chao, Elaine, 346 F.3d 192 (D.C. Cir. 2003). · cites it 3× “But § 633a(d) provides express prerequisites to suit (30 days advance notice of intent to sue, within 180 days of the discriminatory act’s occurrence) by a claimant who “has not filed a complaint concerning age discrimination with the [Equal Opportunity Employment] Commission.”

Achagzai v. Broad. Bd. of Governors, 170 F. Supp. 3d 164 (D.D.C. 2016). · cites it 2× “29 C.F.R. § 1614.106 ; In re James, 444 F.”

Alfreida Hogan v. Sec'y, U.S. Dep't of Vets. Affairs, 121 F.4th 172 (11th Cir. 2024). · cites it 6× “See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.106 (b). Once the employee files her formal administrative complaint, the agency must acknowledge receipt in writing and confirm the date on which the complaint was filed.”

James Crawford v. Elaine C. Duke, 867 F.3d 103 (D.C. Cir. 2017). · cites it 2× “29 C.F.R. § 1614.106 (e). Additionally, tjie agency must advise the.”

Edwin F. Fernandez v. Michael Chertoff, 1 Sec'y, Dep't of Homeland Sec., Docket No. 05-0426-Cv, 471 F.3d 45 (2d Cir. 2006). · cites it 2× “See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.106 . By contrast, a “mixed” case involves both a claim of discrimination and a challenge to other types of prohibited personnel actions taken by the agency that are ultimately appealable to the Merit Systems Protection Board (“MSPB”).”

Stan Laber v. Francis J. Harvey, Sec'y of the Army, 438 F.3d 404 (4th Cir. 2006). “See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.106 . The agency investigates the claim, see 29 C.”

Katrina Webster v. Carlos Del Toro, 49 F.4th 562 (D.C. Cir. 2022). · cites it 3× “” 29 C.F.R. § 1614.106 (c). Likewise, we routinely apply section 717(c)’s exhaustion requirement on a claim-by-claim basis, to hold that federal employees have exhausted challenges to some employment practices but not others.”

Adams v. Rice, 531 F.3d 936 (D.C. Cir. 2008). · cites it 2× “" 29 C.F.R. § 1614.106 (c) (emphasis added).”

Susan Morris v. Gina McCarthy, 825 F.3d 658 (D.C. Cir. 2016). “29 C.F.R. § 1614.106 (a), (b). Finally, if that office finds against her, she may appeal further to the Equal' Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) or file suit in district *665 court.”

Show all 380 citing cases →

— 29 C.F.R. § 1614.106(a) — 3 cases

Figueroa v. Geithner, 711 F. Supp. 2d 562 (D. Maryland 2010).

Ramos v. Vizcarrondo, 120 F. Supp. 3d 93 (D.P.R. 2015).

Eleazu v. US Army Network Enter. Ctr. - Natick (D.S.C. 2020).

— 29 C.F.R. § 1614.106(b) — 2 cases

Ortiz-Nieves v. Bernhardt (D.P.R. 2022).

Tudor v. US Dep't of Homeland Sec. (N.D. Tex. 2023).

— 29 C.F.R. § 1614.106(c) — 1 case

Shin v. Shalala, Sec (4th Cir. 2000).

— 29 C.F.R. § 1614.106(d) — 3 cases

Hutchinson v. Holder, 668 F. Supp. 2d 201 (D.D.C. 2009).

Robb v. Perdue (D.D.C. 2021).

Hutchinson v. Holder (D.D.C. 2009).

— 29 C.F.R. § 1614.106(d)(2) — 1 case

Phillips v. Widnall, 79 F. Supp. 2d 1265 (D.N.M. 1999).

— 29 C.F.R. § 1614.106(e)(2) — 2 cases

James Crawford v. Elaine C. Duke, 867 F.3d 103 (D.C. Cir. 2017). “29 C.F.R. § 1614.106 (e). Additionally, tjie agency must advise the.”

Norris v. Acting Sec'y, United States Dep't of Homeland Sec. (S.D. Fla. 2020).

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.