(a) A complainant may appeal an agency's final action or dismissal of a complaint.
(b) An agency may appeal as provided in § 1614.110(a).
(c) A class agent or an agency may appeal an administrative judge's decision accepting or dismissing all or part of a class complaint; a class agent may appeal an agency's final action or an agency may appeal an administrative judge's decision on a class complaint; a class member may appeal a final decision on a claim for individual relief under a class complaint; and a class member, a class agent or an agency may appeal a final decision on a petition pursuant to § 1614.204(g)(4).
(d) A grievant may appeal the final decision of the agency, the arbitrator or the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) on the grievance when an issue of employment discrimination was raised in a negotiated grievance procedure that permits such issues to be raised. A grievant may not appeal under this part, however, when the matter initially raised in the negotiated grievance procedure is still ongoing in that process, is in arbitration, is before the FLRA, is appealable to the MSPB or if 5 U.S.C. 7121(d) is inapplicable to the involved agency.
(e) A complainant, agent or individual class claimant may appeal to the Commission an agency's alleged noncompliance with a settlement agreement or final decision in accordance with § 1614.504.
[57 FR 12646, Apr. 10, 1992, as amended at 64 FR 37659, July 12, 1999; 77 FR 43505, July 25, 2012]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
72
cases (
15 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 2× “10 29 C.F.R. § 1614.401 (d). 3 While the plain language of this regulation thus prohibits Hickey from appealing the result of her union grievance process to the EEOC, Hickey argues that this regulation has been superseded by Section 301(c), which provides: When a person is…”
Koch v. Schapiro, 934 F. Supp. 2d 261 (D.D.C. 2013).
· cites it 6× “at 1. A. Mr. Koch Failed to Exhaust His Administrative Remedies Before Mr.”
James Crawford v. Elaine C. Duke, 867 F.3d 103 (D.C. Cir. 2017).
“29 C.F.R. § 1614.401 (a). B In 2011, James Crawford was employed by the Department of Homeland Security *106 as a Special Security Officer in the Special Security Programs Division.”
Mohamed Al-Saffy v. Thomas Vilsack, 827 F.3d 85 (D.C. Cir. 2016).
“” 29 C.F.R. §§ 1614.401 (a), 1614.402(a). Alternatively, the employee may file suit in federal district court within ninety days of receiving the final agency action.”
Saksenasingh v. Sec'y of Educ., 126 F.3d 347 (D.C. Cir. 1997).
· cites it 2× “This holding was based on 29 C.F.R. §§ 1614.401 (d), 1614.408(c), and 1614.”
LAUDADIO v. Johanns, 677 F. Supp. 2d 590 (E.D.N.Y 2010).
· cites it 2× “29 C.F.R. § 1614.401 . Notwithstanding these administrative remedies, Section 717(c) of Title VII authorizes an employee to file a civil action in federal court 180 days from the date of filing a written EEO complaint with the agency or an appeal with the EEOC, regardless of…”
Munoz v. Mabus, 630 F.3d 856 (9th Cir. 2010).
“The district court reasoned as follows: (1) 29 C.F.R. § 1614.401 (e) allows a complainant to appeal “an agency’s alleged noncompliance with a settlement agreement” to the EEOC; (2) § 1614.”
Nancy R. SWEENEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Togo D. WEST, Jr., Sec'y, Dept. of the Army, Defendant-Appellee, 149 F.3d 550 (7th Cir. 1998).
“The parties settled the case in 1990, though again neither side has disclosed the exact terms of the settlement, 1 or whether they settled the ease at the agency level as opposed to the EEOC (a complainant may appeal an agency’s final decision to the Commission, see 29 C.F.R. §…”
Puckett v. Potter, 342 F. Supp. 2d 1056 (M.D. Ala. 2004).
· cites it 3× “8 Puckett appealed the USPS’s final decision pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.401 (a). September 1998 EEOC Decision: On September 24, 1998, the EEOC reversed the USPS’s decision that it had fully implemented its April 1993 decision.”
— 29 C.F.R. § 1614.401(a) — 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.