(a) Any settlement agreement knowingly and voluntarily agreed to by the parties, reached at any stage of the complaint process, shall be binding on both parties. Final action that has not been the subject of an appeal or civil action shall be binding on the agency. If the complainant believes that the agency has failed to comply with the terms of a settlement agreement or decision, the complainant shall notify the EEO Director, in writing, of the alleged noncompliance within 30 days of when the complainant knew or should have known of the alleged noncompliance. The complainant may request that the terms of settlement agreement be specifically implemented or, alternatively, that the complaint be reinstated for further processing from the point processing ceased.
(b) The agency shall resolve the matter and respond to the complainant, in writing. If the agency has not responded to the complainant, in writing, or if the complainant is not satisfied with the agency's attempt to resolve the matter, the complainant may appeal to the Commission for a determination as to whether the agency has complied with the terms of the settlement agreement or decision. The complainant may file such an appeal 35 days after he or she has served the agency with the allegations of noncompliance, but must file an appeal within 30 days of his or her receipt of an agency's determination. The complainant must serve a copy of the appeal on the agency and the agency may submit a response to the Commission within 30 days of receiving notice of the appeal.
(c) Prior to rendering its determination, the Commission may request that parties submit whatever additional information or documentation it deems necessary or may direct that an investigation or hearing on the matter be conducted. If the Commission determines that the agency is not in compliance with a decision or settlement agreement, and the noncompliance is not attributable to acts or conduct of the complainant, it may order such compliance with the decision or settlement agreement, or, alternatively, for a settlement agreement, it may order that the complaint be reinstated for further processing from the point processing ceased. Allegations that subsequent acts of discrimination violate a settlement agreement shall be processed as separate complaints under § 1614.106 or § 1614.204, as appropriate, rather than under this section.
[57 FR 12646, Apr. 10, 1992, as amended at 64 FR 37660, July 12, 1999; 77 FR 43506, July 25, 2012]
Notes of Decisions
Sheryl Taylor v. Timothy Geithner, 703 F.3d 328 (6th Cir. 2013).
· cites it 12× “These procedures track the language of 29 C.F.R. § 1614.504 , a key provision discussed below.”
Lindstrom v. United States, 510 F.3d 1191 (10th Cir. 2007).
· cites it 9× “at 58-59 ; 29 C.F.R. § 1614.504 (a). As part of the settlement, three experts evaluated Mr.”
Munoz v. Mabus, 630 F.3d 856 (9th Cir. 2010).
· cites it 9× “The agreement also included an integration clause and provided that any alleged noncompliance be processed in accordance with 29 C.F.R. § 1614.504 . Soon after execution of the agreement, Munoz requested training on a new missile launch system (Vertical Missile Launch System, or…”
Berry v. Gutierrez, 587 F. Supp. 2d 717 (E.D. Va. 2008).
· cites it 7× “” 29 C.F.R. § 1614.504 (a). If the agency does not resolve the matter or rules against the complainant, the complainant can appeal the decision to the EEOC.”
Hansson, Marian K. v. Norton, Gale, 411 F.3d 231 (D.C. Cir. 2005).
· cites it 5× “The settlement agreement provided that “should the Agency fail to honor its obligations as set forth in this Resolution Agreement for any reason not attributed to acts or conduct by the Complainant, the provisions outlined in 29 C.F.R. § 1614.504 shall govern.” Id. ¶ 11 , at 9.”
Herron v. Veneman, 305 F. Supp. 2d 64 (D.D.C. 2004).
· cites it 6× “There is no indication that plaintiffs notified USDA’s EEO director in writing, as required by 29 C.F.R. § 1614.504 (a), anytime after March 27, 2003; indeed, it seems that *72 they never provided notification.”
Pucciariello v. United States, 116 Fed. Cl. 390 (Fed. Cl. 2014).
· cites it 4× “As support for this argument, the government cites the EEOC regulation at 29 C.F.R. § 1614.504 (2013), which provides that a complainant alleging breach of an EEOC settlement agreement “may request that the terms of [the] settlement *405 agreement be specifically implemented or,…”
Tallacus v. United States, 99 Fed. Cl. 235 (Fed. Cl. 2011).
· cites it 10× “§ 1500 and 29 C.F.R. § 1614.504 , defendant’s motion is granted.”
Cole v. Powell, 605 F. Supp. 2d 20 (D.D.C. 2009).
· cites it 4× “29 C.F.R. § 1614.504 (a); Herron v. Veneman, 305 F.”
Frahm v. United States, 492 F.3d 258 (4th Cir. 2007).
· cites it 3× “The IRS did not respond to Miss Frahm’s letter, leading Miss Frahm to file an appeal with the EEOC pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.504 (b) to seek enforcement of the settlement agreement.”
Johnson v. United States, 107 Fed. Cl. 379 (Fed. Cl. 2012).
· cites it 13× “Any breach of this Agreement shall be enforced in accordance with 29 C.F.R. § 1614.504 , which provides, among other things, that “if [Plaintiff] believes that the agency has failed to comply with the terms of a settlement agreement or final decision, [Plaintiff] shall notify…”
— 29 C.F.R. § 1614.504(a) — 5 cases
Lindstrom v. United States, 510 F.3d 1191 (10th Cir. 2007).
“at 58-59 ; 29 C.F.R. § 1614.504 (a). As part of the settlement, three experts evaluated Mr.”
Herron v. Veneman, 305 F. Supp. 2d 64 (D.D.C. 2004).
“There is no indication that plaintiffs notified USDA’s EEO director in writing, as required by 29 C.F.R. § 1614.504 (a), anytime after March 27, 2003; indeed, it seems that *72 they never provided notification.”
— 29 C.F.R. § 1614.504(b) — 1 case
Herron v. Veneman, 305 F. Supp. 2d 64 (D.D.C. 2004).
“There is no indication that plaintiffs notified USDA’s EEO director in writing, as required by 29 C.F.R. § 1614.504 (a), anytime after March 27, 2003; indeed, it seems that *72 they never provided notification.”
— 29 C.F.R. § 1614.504(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.