(a) When a person is employed by an agency subject to 5 U.S.C. 7121(d) and is covered by a collective bargaining agreement that permits allegations of discrimination to be raised in a negotiated grievance procedure, a person wishing to file a complaint or a grievance on a matter of alleged employment discrimination must elect to raise the matter under either part 1614 or the negotiated grievance procedure, but not both. An election to proceed under this part is indicated only by the filing of a written complaint; use of the pre-complaint process as described in § 1614.105 does not constitute an election for purposes of this section. An aggrieved employee who files a complaint under this part may not thereafter file a grievance on the same matter. An election to proceed under a negotiated grievance procedure is indicated by the filing of a timely written grievance. An aggrieved employee who files a grievance with an agency whose negotiated agreement permits the acceptance of grievances which allege discrimination may not thereafter file a complaint on the same matter under this part 1614 irrespective of whether the agency has informed the individual of the need to elect or of whether the grievance has raised an issue of discrimination. Any such complaint filed after a grievance has been filed on the same matter shall be dismissed without prejudice to the complainant's right to proceed through the negotiated grievance procedure including the right to appeal to the Commission from a final decision as provided in subpart D of this part. The dismissal of such a complaint shall advise the complainant of the obligation to raise discrimination in the grievance process and of the right to appeal the final grievance decision to the Commission.
(b) When a person is not covered by a collective bargaining agreement that permits allegations of discrimination to be raised in a negotiated grievance procedure, allegations of discrimination shall be processed as complaints under this part.
(c) When a person is employed by an agency not subject to 5 U.S.C 7121(d) and is covered by a negotiated grievance procedure, allegations of discrimination shall be processed as complaints under this part, except that the time limits for processing the complaint contained in § 1614.106 and for appeal to the Commission contained in § 1614.402 may be held in abeyance during processing of a grievance covering the same matter as the complaint if the agency notifies the complainant in writing that the complaint will be held in abeyance pursuant to this section.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
60
cases (
14 in the last 5 years), 1994–2025 · leading case:
Hickey v. Brennan, 969 F.3d 1113 (10th Cir. 2020).
Hickey v. Brennan, 969 F.3d 1113 (10th Cir. 2020).
· cites it 5× “29 C.F.R. § 1614.301 (a); see also 5 U.S.”
Rosell v. Wood, 357 F. Supp. 2d 123 (D.D.C. 2004).
· cites it 5× “§ 7121 (d); 29 C.F.R. § 1614.301 (a) (2003). If an employee files a timely written grievance, before filing a written EEO complaint, he has irrevocably chosen the negotiated grievance procedure, and is precluded from filing an EEO complaint on the same matter.”
Garry Heimrich v. Usdoa, 947 F.3d 574 (9th Cir. 2020).
· cites it 4× “; see also 29 C.F.R. § 1614.301 (a). In the alternative, the employee may raise the matter under the “statutory procedure” by filing a formal complaint with the employing agency’s EEO office.”
Smith v. Jackson, 539 F. Supp. 2d 116 (D.D.C. 2008).
· cites it 2× “*128 II: LEGAL STANDARDS A Motion to Dismiss Defendant argues that Plaintiffs legal claims must be dismissed insofar as they are based on the revocation of his CWS and his AWOL charge, because he filed a grievance regarding those claims, and thus was required under 29 C.F.R. §…”
Taylor v. Dam, 244 F. Supp. 2d 747 (S.D. Tex. 2003).
· cites it 3× “With regard to the relationship between EEO complaints and negotiated grievance procedures, the EEOC has promulgated a regulation implementing Section 7121(d), which provides in pertinent part: 29 C.F.R. § 1614.301 (a). In interpreting Section 1614.”
Carter v. Carson, 241 F. Supp. 3d 191 (D.D.C. 2017).
· cites it 2× “§ 7121 (d); 29 C.F.R. § 1614.301 (a)); see Johnson v.”
Koch v. Schapiro, 934 F. Supp. 2d 261 (D.D.C. 2013).
· cites it 2× “§ 7121 (d); 29 C.F.R. § 1614.301 (a) (2012); see also Johnson v.”
Douglas v. Norton, 167 F. App'x 698 (10th Cir. 2006).
“29 C.F.R. § 1614.301 (a). Here, although Douglas contacted an EEO counselor on September 1, 1999, and wrote a memo to the EEO office on September 9, 1999, alleging discrimination, such use of the pre-complaint process did not constitute an election of the statutory procedure.”
Frasure v. Principi, 367 F. Supp. 2d 245 (D. Conn. 2005).
· cites it 2× “29 C.F.R. § 1614.301 (a). The initial choice between the statutory scheme or the negotiated grievance process is an irrevocable one.”
MacY v. Dalton, 853 F. Supp. 350 (E.D. Cal. 1994).
· cites it 2× “7121(d) and is covered by a collective bargaining agreement that permits allegations of discrimination to be raised in a negotiated grievance procedure, a person wishing to file a complaint or a grievance on a matter of alleged employment discrimination must elect to raise the…”
— 29 C.F.R. § 1614.301(a) — 4 cases
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.