29 C.F.R. § 1614.107

Dismissals of complaints

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

(a) Prior to a request for a hearing in a case, the agency shall dismiss an entire complaint:

(1) That fails to state a claim under § 1614.103 or § 1614.106(a) or states the same claim that is pending before or has been decided by the agency or Commission;

(2) That fails to comply with the applicable time limits contained in §§ 1614.105, 1614.106 and 1614.204(c), unless the agency extends the time limits in accordance with § 1614.604(c), or that raises a matter that has not been brought to the attention of a Counselor and is not like or related to a matter that has been brought to the attention of a Counselor;

(3) That is the basis of a pending civil action in a United States District Court in which the complainant is a party provided that at least 180 days have passed since the filing of the administrative complaint, or that was the basis of a civil action decided by a United States District Court in which the complainant was a party;

(4) Where the complainant has raised the matter in a negotiated grievance procedure that permits allegations of discrimination or in an appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board and § 1614.301 or § 1614.302 indicates that the complainant has elected to pursue the non-EEO process;

(5) That is moot or alleges that a proposal to take a personnel action, or other preliminary step to taking a personnel action, is discriminatory, unless the complaint alleges that the proposal or preliminary step is retaliatory;

(6) Where the complainant cannot be located, provided that reasonable efforts have been made to locate the complainant and the complainant has not responded within 15 days to a notice of proposed dismissal sent to his or her last known address;

(7) Where the agency has provided the complainant with a written request to provide relevant information or otherwise proceed with the complaint, and the complainant has failed to respond to the request within 15 days of its receipt or the complainant's response does not address the agency's request, provided that the request included a notice of the proposed dismissal. Instead of dismissing for failure to cooperate, the complaint may be adjudicated if sufficient information for that purpose is available;

(8) That alleges dissatisfaction with the processing of a previously filed complaint; or

(9) Where the agency, strictly applying the criteria set forth in Commission decisions, finds that the complaint is part of a clear pattern of misuse of the EEO process for a purpose other than the prevention and elimination of employment discrimination. A clear pattern of misuse of the EEO process requires:

(i) Evidence of multiple complaint filings; and

(ii) Allegations that are similar or identical, lack specificity or involve matters previously resolved; or

(iii) Evidence of circumventing other administrative processes, retaliating against the agency's in-house administrative processes or overburdening the EEO complaint system.

(b) Where the agency believes that some but not all of the claims in a complaint should be dismissed for the reasons contained in paragraphs (a)(1) through (9) of this section, the agency shall notify the complainant in writing of its determination, the rationale for that determination and that those claims will not be investigated, and shall place a copy of the notice in the investigative file. A determination under this paragraph is reviewable by an administrative judge if a hearing is requested on the remainder of the complaint, but is not appealable until final action is taken on the remainder of the complaint.

[57 FR 12646, Apr. 10, 1992, as amended at 64 FR 37656, July 12, 1999; 77 FR 43504, July 25, 2012]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 301 cases (72 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 6× “Moreover, any such partial dismissal would have triggered additional regulatory notice requirements, such as alerting the employee in writing that the agency intends to partially dismiss claims rather than investigate them, and providing an explanation for their dismissal.”

Mohamed Al-Saffy v. Thomas Vilsack, 827 F.3d 85 (D.C. Cir. 2016). · cites it 4× “” 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107 (a). But'the ALJ order plainly did not dismiss the “entire complaint.”

Lisa L. Fitzgerald v. William Henderson, Postmaster Gen., United States Postal Serv., 251 F.3d 345 (2d Cir. 2001). · cites it 2× “The failure to comply with this rule precludes the filing of a formal complaint with the agency, 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107 (a)(2), and precludes a discrimination claim in federal court.”

Vazquez-Rivera v. Figueroa, 759 F.3d 44 (1st Cir. 2014). · cites it 4× “The Army cited Vázquez’s failure to file within fifteen days and dismissed the complaint as untimely pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107 (a)(2). The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) agreed, and on February 2, 2011, it affirmed the dismissal for untimely filing.”

Dick v. Holder, 80 F. Supp. 3d 103 (D.D.C. 2015). · cites it 6× “(citing 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107 (a)(1) (mandating agency dismissal for failure to state a claim)).”

Weber v. Battista, 494 F.3d 179 (D.C. Cir. 2007). · cites it 2× “” 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107 (a)(2). The Board contends Weber failed to exhaust the claim concerning her nonse-lection because she added it by amending her formal administrative complaint without first having sought informal counseling with regard to that claim.”

Yeschick v. Mineta, 675 F.3d 622 (6th Cir. 2012). · cites it 2× “The EEOC dismissed his complaint for untimeliness pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107 (a)(2), 2 because although Yes-chick applied to be rehired in 1993, he did not undertake any follow-up action on his application until October 3, 2002, when he contacted the EEOC.”

Adams v. Rice, 531 F.3d 936 (D.C. Cir. 2008). · cites it 2× “See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107 (a)(3) (instructing EEOC to dismiss complaint when complainant has filed a civil action in federal district court more than 180 days after filing administrative complaint).”

Monreal v. Runyon, 367 F.3d 1224 (10th Cir. 2004). · cites it 2× “Shortly after the civil action was filed in the district court, the EEOC remanded the class administrative complaint, which had been filed with it over six months earlier, to the USPS to dismiss under 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107 (c). 5 Section 1614.”

LAUDADIO v. Johanns, 677 F. Supp. 2d 590 (E.D.N.Y 2010). · cites it 4× “) The FAD dismissed the claim pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107 (a)(3) as a “compliant that is the basis for a pending civil action in a United States District Court.”

Saunders v. Mills, 172 F. Supp. 3d 74 (D.D.C. 2016). · cites it 2× “SBA dismissed the complaint on April 16, 2012- pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107 (a)(2). Ms. Saunders did not appeal SBA’s dismissal to the EEOC.”

Gary Hamilton v. Timothy Geithner, 666 F.3d 1344 (D.C. Cir. 2012). “See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107 (b) (“Where the agency believes that some but not all of the claims in a complaint should be dismissed .”

Show all 301 citing cases →

— 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(3) — 1 case

Khoury v. Meserve, 268 F. Supp. 2d 600 (D. Maryland 2003).

— 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a) — 2 cases

Holmes v. Esper (D.S.C. 2020).

Tsai v. Helfer, 940 F. Supp. 597 (S.D.N.Y. 1996).

— 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(1) — 2 cases

Hawthorne v. U.S. Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n (N.D. Ala. 2020).

Hawthorne v. U.S. Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n (N.D. Ala. 2022).

— 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(2) — 2 cases

Lisa L. Fitzgerald v. William Henderson, Postmaster Gen., United States Postal Serv., 251 F.3d 345 (2d Cir. 2001). “The failure to comply with this rule precludes the filing of a formal complaint with the agency, 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107 (a)(2), and precludes a discrimination claim in federal court.”

Zachary Reynolds v. Frank Kendall III (6th Cir. 2023).

— 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(4) — 2 cases

Tucker v. Astrue, 738 F. Supp. 2d 835 (N.D. Ill. 2010).

Martell v. Norton, 242 F. Supp. 2d 652 (D.N.D. 2003).

— 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(8) — 1 case

Santiago v. United States Dep't of Army, 128 F. Supp. 3d 469 (D.P.R. 2015).

— 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(b) — 2 cases

Hampton v. Schafer, 561 F. Supp. 2d 99 (D.D.C. 2008).

Ellison v. Brennan (M.D. Fla. 2020).

— 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(c) — 1 case

Hargens v. United States Dep't of Agric., 865 F. Supp. 1314 (N.D. Iowa 1994).

— 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(d) — 1 case

Cade v. Henderson (5th Cir. 1999).

— 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(g) — 1 case

Rann v. Chao, 154 F. Supp. 2d 61 (D.D.C. 2001).

— 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(g)(3) — 1 case

Coleman v. Donahoe, 906 F. Supp. 2d 917 (D. Alaska 2012).

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.