29 C.F.R. § 1614.408
Civil action: Equal Pay Act
A complainant is authorized under section 16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (29 U.S.C. 216(b)) to file a civil action in a court of competent jurisdiction within two years or, if the violation is willful, three years of the date of the alleged violation of the Equal Pay Act regardless of whether he or she pursued any administrative complaint processing. Recovery of back wages is limited to two years prior to the date of filing suit, or to three years if the violation is deemed willful; liquidated damages in an equal amount may also be awarded. The filing of a complaint or appeal under this part shall not toll the time for filing a civil action.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 73
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1993–2024 · leading case: Monreal v. Runyon
Monreal v. Runyon (2004)
“Under 29 C.F.R. § 1614.408 (a), a complainant may file an action in federal court after receiving the agency’s final decision on an administrative complaint.”
Saksenasingh v. Secretary of Education (1997)
“29 C.F.R. § 1614.408 (b). On the record at hand, there is no doubt that Saksenasingh was not required to appeal to the EEOC as the District Court held.”
Mathirampuzha v. Potter (2008)
“The documentation the plaintiff submitted during the pre-complaint counseling process was likewise devoid of any indication that he was alleging retaliation or a hostile work environment.”
Herbert K. Wilson v. Federico F. Pena, Secretary, Department of Transportation (1996)
“281 (c) (1995), recodified as amended at 29 C.F.R. § 1614.408 (1995). When the agency sent the February 14 letter, it had yet to compute a backpay award; its decision to base the backpay on “fully satisfactory” ratings was not “a determination on all of the issues in the…”
Lange v. United States (2007)
“In contrast, the controlling regulation, 29 C.F.R. § 1614.408 , authorizes a complainant to proceed to file an EPA action directly in court without exhausting administrative remedies.”
Sloan v. West (1998)
“29 C.F.R. § 1614.408 (c) (1997). . An employee may also file in district court if, after 180 days from the date of appealing to the EEOC, the EEOC has not issued a final decision on the matter.”
V. Carol Robbins v. Lloyd Bentsen in His Capacity as Secretary of the Treasury v. Carol Robbins v. Keith Faust, Joe Will (1994)
“” 29 C.F.R. § 1614.408 (b). Additionally, if a final decision has been issued, employees must file a civil action within 90 days of that decision.”
Arizmendi v. Lawson (1996)
“Defendant Brown’s motion is premised on a failure by plaintiff to lodge an administrative complaint within 45 days as required by 29 C.”
Timmons v. Caldera (2003)
“2000e-16(c) and Title 29 C.F.R. 1614.408.” ApltApp. at 21. Additionally, the court held that de novo review under § 2000e-16(e) “requires a trial of all the issues in the particular case.”
Wayne Belgrave v. Frederico Pena, Secretary of the United States Department of Energy (2001)
“§ 2000e-16(c); 29 C.F.R. § 1614.408 (a), (b). As the government points out, Bel-grave admitted both in sworn deposition testimony and in his response to the government’s Local Rule of Civil Procedure 56.”
Virgil BOHAC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Togo D. WEST, Jr., Secretary of the Army, Defendant-Appellee (1996)
“§ 633a(c); 29 C.F.R. § 1614.408 . To commence an administrative action, however, an Equal Employment Opportunity (“EEO”) counselor must first be contacted within 45 days of the date of the questioned incident.”
Marshall v. James (2003)
“§ 2000e-5(f)(l); 29 C.F.R. § 1614.408 (a) and (b); see also Martini v.”
— 29 C.F.R. § 1614.408(a) — 1 case
— 29 C.F.R. § 1614.408(b) — 1 case
— 29 C.F.R. § 1614.408(c) — 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.