(a) At any stage in the processing of a complaint, including the counseling stage § 1614.105, the complainant shall have the right to be accompanied, represented, and advised by a representative of complainant's choice.
(b) If the complainant is an employee of the agency, he or she shall have a reasonable amount of official time, if otherwise on duty, to prepare the complaint and to respond to agency and EEOC requests for information. If the complainant is an employee of the agency and he designates another employee of the agency as his or her representative, the representative shall have a reasonable amount of official time, if otherwise on duty, to prepare the complaint and respond to agency and EEOC requests for information. The agency is not obligated to change work schedules, incur overtime wages, or pay travel expenses to facilitate the choice of a specific representative or to allow the complainant and representative to confer. The complainant and representative, if employed by the agency and otherwise in a pay status, shall be on official time, regardless of their tour of duty, when their presence is authorized or required by the agency or the Commission during the investigation, informal adjustment, or hearing on the complaint.
(c) In cases where the representation of a complainant or agency would conflict with the official or collateral duties of the representative, the Commission or the agency may, after giving the representative an opportunity to respond, disqualify the representative.
(d) Unless the complainant states otherwise in writing, after the agency has received written notice of the name, address and telephone number of a representative for the complainant, all official correspondence shall be with the representative with copies to the complainant. When the complainant designates an attorney as representative, service of all official correspondence shall be made on the attorney and the complainant, but time frames for receipt of materials shall be computed from the time of receipt by the attorney. The complainant must serve all official correspondence on the designated representative of the agency.
(e) The Complainant shall at all times be responsible for proceeding with the complaint whether or not he or she has designated a representative.
(f) Witnesses who are Federal employees, regardless of their tour of duty and regardless of whether they are employed by the respondent agency or some other Federal agency, shall be in a duty status when their presence is authorized or required by Commission or agency officials in connection with a complaint.
[57 FR 12646, Apr. 10, 1992, as amended at 64 FR 37661, July 12, 1999]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
32
cases (
3 in the last 5 years), 1994–2026 · leading case:
Frank Rembisz v. Jacob Lew, 590 F. App'x 501 (6th Cir. 2014).
Frank Rembisz v. Jacob Lew, 590 F. App'x 501 (6th Cir. 2014).
· cites it 2× “In 1999, Federal Regulation 29 CFR 1614.605 was adopted and made applicable to § 2000e-16(c).”
Harris v. Bodman, 538 F. Supp. 2d 78 (D.D.C. 2008).
· cites it 3× “Attempting to dodge the considerable amount of caselaw to the contrary, plaintiff asserts that his complaint is timely because an EEOC regulation, 29 C.F.R. § 1614.605 (d), “expressly providefs] that the time frame for receipt of materials is computed from the time of receipt by…”
Mayberry v. Env't Prot. Agency, 366 F. App'x 907 (10th Cir. 2010).
· cites it 3× “Mayberry argues that the Notice of Final Interview she signed on November 23, 2005 was ineffective because it was not sent to her attorney as required by 29 C.F.R. § 1614.605 (d). 1 The district court rejected this argument because Ms.”
Jeffers v. Thompson, 264 F. Supp. 2d 314 (D. Maryland 2003).
“Although regulations mandate that a federal employee be granted “a reasonable amount of official time, if otherwise on duty, to prepare the complaint and to respond to agency and EEOC requests for information,” 29 C.F.R. § 1614.605 (b), HCFA policy required employees to request…”
Gantt v. Mabus, 857 F. Supp. 2d 120 (D.D.C. 2012).
· cites it 3× “See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.605 . Gantt provided the required written notice when he indicated that he was represented by Edwards, both on his Formal Complaint of Employment Discrimination and on his Notice of Appeal to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.”
Frank Rembisz v. Jacob Lew, 830 F.3d 681 (6th Cir. 2016).
“” 29 C.F.R. § 1614.605 (d). But that regulation “is concerned with ‘time frames for receipt of materials’ solely in the [Equal Employment Opportunity Commission] administrative process,” making it inapplicable to civil proceedings before courts rather than administrative…”
Yonemoto v. McDonald, 114 F. Supp. 3d 1067 (D. Haw. 2015).
“Indeed, Carethers was previously informed by Miyamoto that pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.605 (b), employees should be given AA only “to prepare the complaint and response to agency and EEOC requests for information,” and that time for other matters did not require AA.”
Batson v. Powell, 912 F. Supp. 565 (D.D.C. 1996).
“The relevant sections of 29 C.F.R. § 1614.605 , Representation and Official Time, are: (a) At any stage in the processing of a complaint, including the counseling stage [§ 1614.”
Bob Rhodes v. Raytheon Co., 555 F. App'x 665 (9th Cir. 2014).
“He contends that sending a right-to-sue notice to his attorney without the accompanying correspondence violates 29 C.F.R. § 1614.605 (d). However, that regulation governs federal sector employment discrimination and does not apply to this case.”
— 29 C.F.R. § 1614.605(d) — 4 cases
Frank Rembisz v. Jacob Lew, 590 F. App'x 501 (6th Cir. 2014).
“In 1999, Federal Regulation 29 CFR 1614.605 was adopted and made applicable to § 2000e-16(c).”
— 29 C.F.R. § 1614.605(e) — 4 cases
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.