(a) The Office of Federal Operations, on behalf of the Commission, shall issue a written decision setting forth its reasons for the decision. The Commission shall dismiss appeals in accordance with §§ 1614.107, 1614.403(c) and 1614.409. The decision shall be based on the preponderance of the evidence. The decision on an appeal from an agency's final action shall be based on a de novo review, except that the review of the factual findings in a decision by an administrative judge issued pursuant to § 1614.109(i) shall be based on a substantial evidence standard of review. If the decision contains a finding of discrimination, appropriate remedy(ies) shall be included and, where appropriate, the entitlement to interest, attorney's fees or costs shall be indicated. The decision shall reflect the date of its issuance, inform the complainant of his or her civil action rights, and be transmitted to the complainant and the agency. For complainants who are not registered with the EEOC Public Portal, the decision will be transmitted by first class mail. For complainants who are registered with the Public Portal, the decision will be transmitted via the Portal provided the complainant affirmatively consents to receive the decision through the Portal. For registered complainants who do not provide affirmative consent, and for complainants who affirmatively consent but subsequently notify the Commission that they withdraw their consent, the decision will be transmitted by first class mail. The Commission will transmit the decision to the agency via FedSEP.
(b) The Office of Federal Operations, on behalf of the Commission, shall issue decisions on appeals of decisions to accept or dismiss a class complaint issued pursuant to § 1614.204(d)(7) within 90 days of receipt of the appeal.
(c) A decision issued under paragraph (a) of this section is final within the meaning of § 1614.407 unless a timely request for reconsideration is filed by a party to the case. A party may request reconsideration within 30 days of receipt of a decision of the Commission, which the Commission in its discretion may grant, if the party demonstrates that:
(1) The appellate decision involved a clearly erroneous interpretation of material fact or law; or
(2) The decision will have a substantial impact on the policies, practices or operations of the agency.
[57 FR 12646, Apr. 10, 1992, as amended at 64 FR 37659, July 12, 1999; 77 FR 43505, July 25, 2012; 88 FR 57881, Aug. 24, 2023]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
40
cases (
4 in the last 5 years), 1996–2024 · leading case:
Williams v. Chu, 641 F. Supp. 2d 31 (D.D.C. 2009).
Williams v. Chu, 641 F. Supp. 2d 31 (D.D.C. 2009).
· cites it 6× “The defendants counter that the plaintiffs reading of § 2000e-16(c) is inconsistent with 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405 (b), the agency regulation interpreting the term “final action” for purposes of § 1614.”
Conkle v. Potter, 352 F.3d 1333 (10th Cir. 2003).
· cites it 4× “The regulations further provide that “[a] decision [of the EEOC in an administrative appeal] is final within the meaning of Section 1614.”
Stan Laber v. Francis J. Harvey, Sec'y of the Army, 438 F.3d 404 (4th Cir. 2006).
“§ 2000e-16(b); 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405 . In fact, if the- OFO finds that the agency discriminated against an applicant for employment, like Laber, the OFO must award the employee the position for which he applied (or its substantial equivalent) and back pay.”
McBride v. Citgo Petroleum Corp., 281 F.3d 1099 (10th Cir. 2002).
“See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405 (b) (federal sector employees "may request reconsideration within 30 days of receipt of a decision of the Commission, which the Commission in its discretion may grant.”
Cristobal D. Ramirez v. Sec'y, U.S. Dep't of Transp., 686 F.3d 1239 (11th Cir. 2012).
“29 C.F.R. § 1614.405 (b). Throughout the adminis *1244 trative process, the employee must provide all relevant and available information so the agency and the EEOC have notice of the claim being pursued and can properly investigate and consider it.”
Monreal v. Runyon, 367 F.3d 1224 (10th Cir. 2004).
“Now 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405 (b). 8 . We reject Plaintiffs’ argument that they were ''claimant[s] who ha[ve] filed [] claim[s] for individual relief pursuant to a class complaint.”
Harrison v. Potter, 323 F. Supp. 2d 593 (S.D.N.Y. 2004).
· cites it 2× “See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405 (b). In denying Harrison’s request for reconsideration, the OFO twice notified her that the Commission’s appellate decision remained final and that she would continue to be bound by the initial filing deadlines.”
Berry v. Gutierrez, 587 F. Supp. 2d 717 (E.D. Va. 2008).
“29 C.F.R. §§ 1614.405 (a)-(b), § 1614.407; see Munoz, 557 F.”
Lorenzo v. Rumsfeld, 456 F. Supp. 2d 731 (E.D. Va. 2006).
· cites it 2× “Thus, when the OFO issues its final decision, a plaintiff has two options: to request reconsideration of the OFO decision within 30 days of the final decision or to file a civil action in a United States District Court within 90 days of the final decision.”
Sylvia Crawford v. Bruce Babbitt, Sec'y of the Dep't of the Interior, 186 F.3d 1322 (11th Cir. 1999).
“It is true that once the Agency issued its final decision, Crawford had the option of appealing that decision to the EEOC, see 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405 , and she could have attempted to introduce additional evidence in the administrative record concerning her alleged injuries.”
Cochran v. Holder, 564 F.3d 318 (4th Cir. 2009).
· cites it 4× “29 C.F.R. § 1614.405 (b) (1992). This regulation rendered the rule adopted in Birch no longer good law — that is, the amended regulation specifically provided that a “timely request for reconsideration” delayed the running of the 90-day limitations period until the EEOC ruled on…”
— 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405(b) — 1 case
Lorenzo v. Rumsfeld, 456 F. Supp. 2d 731 (E.D. Va. 2006).
“Thus, when the OFO issues its final decision, a plaintiff has two options: to request reconsideration of the OFO decision within 30 days of the final decision or to file a civil action in a United States District Court within 90 days of the final decision.”
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.