(a) Petition for enforcement. A complainant may petition the Commission for enforcement of a decision issued under the Commission's appellate jurisdiction. The petition shall be submitted to the Office of Federal Operations. The petition shall specifically set forth the reasons that lead the complainant to believe that the agency is not complying with the decision.
(b) Compliance. On behalf of the Commission, the Office of Federal Operations shall take all necessary action to ascertain whether the agency is implementing the decision of the Commission. If the agency is found not to be in compliance with the decision, efforts shall be undertaken to obtain compliance.
(c) Clarification. On behalf of the Commission, the Office of Federal Operations may, on its own motion or in response to a petition for enforcement or in connection with a timely request for reconsideration, issue a clarification of a prior decision. A clarification cannot change the result of a prior decision or enlarge or diminish the relief ordered but may further explain the meaning or intent of the prior decision.
(d) Referral to the Commission. Where the Director, Office of Federal Operations, is unable to obtain satisfactory compliance with the final decision, the Director shall submit appropriate findings and recommendations for enforcement to the Commission, or, as directed by the Commission, refer the matter to another appropriate agency.
(e) Commission notice to show cause. The Commission may issue a notice to the head of any Federal agency that has failed to comply with a decision to show cause why there is noncompliance. Such notice may request the head of the agency or a representative to appear before the Commission or to respond to the notice in writing with adequate evidence of compliance or with compelling reasons for non-compliance.
(f) Certification to the Office of Special Counsel. Where appropriate and pursuant to the terms of a memorandum of understanding, the Commission may refer the matter to the Office of Special Counsel for enforcement action.
(g) Notification to complainant of completion of administrative efforts. Where the Commission has determined that an agency is not complying with a prior decision, or where an agency has failed or refused to submit any required report of compliance, the Commission shall notify the complainant of the right to file a civil action for enforcement of the decision pursuant to Title VII, the ADEA, the Equal Pay Act, the Rehabilitation Act, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, or the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act and to seek judicial review of the agency's refusal to implement the ordered relief pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 701 et seq., and the mandamus statute, 28 U.S.C. 1361, or to commence de novo proceedings pursuant to the appropriate statutes.
[57 FR 12646, Apr. 10, 1992, as amended at 89 FR 11172, Feb. 14, 2024]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
45
cases (
11 in the last 5 years), 1996–2025 · leading case:
Carver v. Holder, 606 F.3d 690 (9th Cir. 2010).
Carver v. Holder, 606 F.3d 690 (9th Cir. 2010).
· cites it 6× “However, after the DOJ issued this report and sent it to the EEOC, the district court granted summary judgment against Carver, reasoning that, under 29 C.F.R. § 1614.503 (g), it now lacked the ability to hear the case because Carver had received a favorable determination by the…”
Stan Laber v. Francis J. Harvey, Sec'y of the Army, 438 F.3d 404 (4th Cir. 2006).
“” 29 C.F.R. § 1614.503 (g). In a suit for enforcement, the issue is not liability or the remedy, as it is in a civil action, but rather whether the federal employer has complied with the OFO’s remedial order.”
David W. Ellis, Jr. v. Gordon R. England, 432 F.3d 1321 (11th Cir. 2005).
“2d at 1563 ; see also 29 C.F.R. § 1614.503 (g). Alternatively, a federal employee unhappy with the administrative decision may bring a claim in the federal district court and obtain the same de novo review that a private sector employee receives in a Title VII action pursuant to…”
Timmons v. Caldera, 314 F.3d 1229 (10th Cir. 2003).
· cites it 2× “Timmons’ suit as an action seeking additional relief rather than an action for enforcement, the district court held that although a federal employer is indeed bound by a prior EEOC finding of discrimination in an action for enforcement, such an action is unavailable under 29…”
Puckett v. Potter, 342 F. Supp. 2d 1056 (M.D. Ala. 2004).
· cites it 7× “May 1996 EEOC Decision: In May 1995, Puckett petitioned the EEOC — pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.503 (a) — to enforce its August 1994 decision.”
Harrigan v. Yang, 168 F. Supp. 3d 25 (D.D.C. 2016).
· cites it 4× “¶ 81, Plaintiff filed a petition under 29 C.F.R. § 1614.503 (a) 1 on June 21, 2013, asking the EEOC to enforce its order (the “Petition for Enforcement”), id.”
Tshudy v. Potter, 350 F. Supp. 2d 901 (D.N.M. 2004).
· cites it 4× “2003); 29 C.F.R. § 1614.503 (g). 2 As noted above, in 2001, when Plaintiff filed an appeal seeking enforcement of the FAD, the EEOC found that Defendant had complied with the FAD when it offered Plaintiff his former position of part-time Flexible Distribution Clerk and gave…”
Murchison v. Astrue, 689 F. Supp. 2d 781 (D. Maryland 2010).
· cites it 5× “29 C.F.R. § 1614.503 (a). The complainant also has the right to file a civil action to enforce compliance with the Commission’s order prior to or following an administrative petition for enforcement.”
Herbert K. Wilson v. Federico F. Pena, Sec'y, Dep't of Transp., 79 F.3d 154 (D.C. Cir. 1996).
“238 (a) (1995), recodified at 29 C.F.R. § 1614.503 (a) (1995). The petition for enforcement challenged whether the agency had fulfilled its obligations with regard to both the performance rating and the backpay award under the original EEOC remedial order, and 29 C.”
Taylor v. United States, 80 Fed. Cl. 376 (Fed. Cl. 2008).
· cites it 4× “29 C.F.R. § 1614.503 (a). The complainant also has the right to file a civil action to enforce compliance with the Commission’s order prior to or following an administrative petition for enforcement.”
Malek v. Leavitt, 437 F. Supp. 2d 517 (D. Maryland 2006).
· cites it 6× “Plaintiff asserts the following claims: (1) Count I, failure to comply with an EEOC Order with regard to Plaintiffs placement upon reinstatement; (2) Count II, failure to comply with an EEOC Order with regard to TSP Allocations; and (3) Count IV, failure to comply with an EEOC…”
— 29 C.F.R. § 1614.503(a) — 1 case
— 29 C.F.R. § 1614.503(b) — 1 case
Murchison v. Astrue, 689 F. Supp. 2d 781 (D. Maryland 2010).
“29 C.F.R. § 1614.503 (a). The complainant also has the right to file a civil action to enforce compliance with the Commission’s order prior to or following an administrative petition for enforcement.”
— 29 C.F.R. § 1614.503(g) — 2 cases
Timmons v. Caldera, 314 F.3d 1229 (10th Cir. 2003).
“Timmons’ suit as an action seeking additional relief rather than an action for enforcement, the district court held that although a federal employer is indeed bound by a prior EEOC finding of discrimination in an action for enforcement, such an action is unavailable under 29…”
Murchison v. Astrue, 689 F. Supp. 2d 781 (D. Maryland 2010).
“29 C.F.R. § 1614.503 (a). The complainant also has the right to file a civil action to enforce compliance with the Commission’s order prior to or following an administrative petition for enforcement.”
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.