(a) Pursuant to sections 6 and 7 of the ADEA and section 11(b) of the FLSA, the Commission may enter into agreements with State or local fair employment practices agencies to cooperate in enforcement, technical assistance, research, or public informational activities, and may engage the services of such agencies in processing charges assuring the safeguard of the Federal rights of aggrieved persons.
(b) The Commission may enter into agreements with State or local agencies which authorize such agencies to receive charges and complaints pursuant to § 1626.5 and in accordance with the specifications contained in §§ 1626.7 and 1626.8.
(c) When a worksharing agreement with a State agency is in effect, the State agency will act on certain charges and the Commission will promptly process charges which the State agency does not pursue. Charges received by one agency under the agreement shall be deemed received by the other agency for purposes of § 1626.7
Notes of Decisions
Schuler v. Pricewaterhousecoopers, LLP, 514 F.3d 1365 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
· cites it 3× “Worksharing Agreement EEOC regulations, specifically 29 C.F.R. § 1626.10 , allow the Commission to “enter into agreements with State or local fair employment practices agencies to cooperate in enforcement, technical assistance, research, or public informational activities, and…”
Torrico v. Int'l Bus. MacHines Corp., 319 F. Supp. 2d 390 (S.D.N.Y. 2004).
· cites it 2× “See also 29 C.F.R. § 1626.10 (c) (“Charges received by one agency under [a worksharing] agreement shall be deemed received by the other agency for purposes of [the timeliness of the charge].”
Slate v. Pub. Def. Serv. for the Dist. of Columbia, 31 F. Supp. 3d 277 (D.D.C. 2014).
“As noted, under a “work-sharing agreement” between the EEOC and the DCOHR pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1626.10 , a charge of discrimination filed with the EEOC in the District of Columbia is deemed cross-filed with the DCOHR.”
Stiefel v. Bechtel Corp., 624 F.3d 1240 (9th Cir. 2010).
“3d at 1104 ; see 29 C.F.R. § 1626.10 (c) (“Charges received by one agency under the [worksharing] agreement shall be deemed received by the other agency for purposes of § 1626.”
Laurance A. Tewksbury v. Ottaway Newspapers, 192 F.3d 322 (2d Cir. 1999).
“10 (c) (“Charges received by one agency under [a worksharing] agreement shall be deemed received by the other agency for purposes of [determining the timeliness of the charge].”); see generally Ford, 81 F.3d at 307 n.”
Jack Colgan v. Fisher Sci. Co., 935 F.2d 1407 (3rd Cir. 1991).
“29 C.F.R. § 1626.10 . It has such an agreement with the Pennsylvania commission by which they divide responsibility, at least in Title VII cases.”
Khair v. Campbell Soup Co., 893 F. Supp. 316 (D.N.J. 1995).
“1994) (Title VII); 29 C.F.R. § 1626.10 (c) (ADEA). 9 . Courts are well aware that corporate reorganizations and personnel transfers can be used as a cover to conceal discriminatory animus.”
Miller v. Gray, 52 F. Supp. 3d 62 (D.D.C. 2014).
“Circuit has explained that the worksharing agreement between the District of Columbia Office of Human Rights (“DCOHR”) and the EEOC, “acting in accordance with 29 C.F.R. § 1626.10 ,” operates so that “[e]harges received by one agency under the agreement shall be deemed received…”
— 29 C.F.R. § 1626.10(c) — 1 case
— 29 C.F.R. § 1626.10(e) — 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.