(a) All time periods in this part that are stated in terms of days are calendar days unless otherwise stated.
(b) A document shall be deemed timely if it is received or postmarked before the expiration of the applicable filing period, or, in the absence of a legible postmark, if it is received by mail within five days of the expiration of the applicable filing period.
(c) A hearing request, appeal, brief, or other document filed by a complainant using the EEOC Public Portal, or filed by an agency using FedSEP, shall be deemed filed on the date the document is uploaded to the Public Portal or FedSEP. The timeliness of documents submitted through the Public Portal and FedSEP will be determined based on the time zone from which the document was submitted.
(d) An EEOC decision that is transmitted to a complainant through the Public Portal or by email shall be deemed to be received when the decision is accessed on the Portal or when received if transmitted via email, or within five days of when the decision is uploaded to the Portal or emailed, whichever occurs first.
(e) For the purposes of §§ 1614.108, 1614.109, 1614.204(i), and 1614.401 through 1614.405, the terms accept, file,filed, filing,issue, issuance,issuing, notify,notified, receive,receipt, send,serve, served,service, submit,submission, submitted,transmit, and transmitted, shall include digital transmissions made through FedSEP, the EEOC Public Portal, or by email.
(f) The time limits in this part are subject to waiver, estoppel and equitable tolling.
(g) The first day counted shall be the day after the event from which the time period begins to run and the last day of the period shall be included, unless it falls on a Saturday, Sunday or Federal holiday, in which case the period shall be extended to include the next business day.
[57 FR 12646, Apr. 10, 1992, as amended at 64 FR 37661, July 12, 1999; 88 FR 57881, Aug. 24, 2023]
Notes of Decisions
Alfreida Hogan v. Sec'y, U.S. Dep't of Vets. Affairs, 121 F.4th 172 (11th Cir. 2024).
· cites it 4× “” 29 C.F.R. § 1614.604 (c). Because it is subject to equitable tolling, the 15-day deadline is a claims processing rule rather than a jurisdictional requirement.”
Vazquez-Rivera v. Figueroa, 759 F.3d 44 (1st Cir. 2014).
· cites it 2× “See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.604 (d). Vázquez, however, did not file his complaint until Tuesday, July 27, 2010.”
Jose Caycho Melgar v. T.B. Butler Publ'g Compa, 931 F.3d 375 (5th Cir. 2019).
“2003) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); 29 C.F.R. § 1614.604 (c). As the plaintiff, Caycho bears the burden of demonstrating the basis for tolling the limitations period.”
Coulibaly v. Kerry, 213 F. Supp. 3d 93 (D.D.C. 2016).
“2d 106 (2002); accord 29 C.F.R. § 1614.604 (c). Generally, courts allow tolling “only in extraordinary and carefully circumscribed instances.”
Koch v. Donaldson, 260 F. Supp. 2d 86 (D.D.C. 2003).
· cites it 3× “' See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.604 (b) (“a document shall be deemed timely if it is received or postmarked before the expiration of the applicable filing period”).”
Roy E. Bowden v. United States, 106 F.3d 433 (D.C. Cir. 1997).
“214 (a)(4) (1991) (recodi-fied as amended at 29 C.F.R. § 1614.604 (c) (1996)), we have tolled time limits in Title VII cases when complainants neither knew nor had reason to know about the limit.”
Monreal v. Runyon, 367 F.3d 1224 (10th Cir. 2004).
“See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.604 (c) (providing that the “time limits in [part 1614] are subject to waiver, estoppel and equitable tolling”); Harms v.”
Randy Jenkins v. City of San Antonio Fire Dept, 784 F.3d 263 (5th Cir. 2015).
“Jenkins cites to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.604 (b) for the proposition that a document is timely if, in the absence of a postmark, it is received within five days of the expiration of the applicable filing period.”
Lozano v. Ashcroft, 258 F.3d 1160 (10th Cir. 2001).
“He relies upon 29 C.F.R. § 1614.604 (b), which provides that a complaint will be considered timely filed if, “in the absence of a legible postmark, it is received by mail within five days of the expiration of the applicable filing period.”
Walter Nielsen v. Chuck Hagel, 666 F. App'x 225 (4th Cir. 2016).
“” 29 C.F.R. § 1614.604 (c). After the agency issues a final decision or dismissal of the employee’s administrative complaint, the aggrieved party may appeal the decision to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), or may file a civil action under Title VII in federal…”
— 29 C.F.R. § 1614.604(c) — 3 cases
Koch v. Donaldson, 260 F. Supp. 2d 86 (D.D.C. 2003).
“' See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.604 (b) (“a document shall be deemed timely if it is received or postmarked before the expiration of the applicable filing period”).”
— 29 C.F.R. § 1614.604(f) — 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.