29 C.F.R. § 1626.11
Notice of charge
Upon receipt of a charge, the Commission shall promptly notify the respondent that a charge has been filed.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1986–2023 · leading case: Fed. Express Corp. v. Holowecki, 552 U.S. 389 (2008).
Fed. Express Corp. v. Holowecki, 552 U.S. 389 (2008). “6, at 3:0001 ("While 29 CFR § 1626.11 only requires notice to the [employer] that an ADEA charge has been filed, it is EEOC policy to also serve the [employer] with a copy of ADEA charges unless this will impede EEOC's law enforcement functions"); Inzeo Memorandum, online at…”
Anthony W. Bost v. Fed. Express Corp., 372 F.3d 1233 (11th Cir. 2004). “” 29 C.F.R. § 1626.11 . Ordinarily, every employee who intends to sue for age discrimination must first file an administrative charge of discrimination with the EEOC.”
Walter W. Steffen v. Meridian Life Ins. Co., & Meridian Mut. Ins. Co., 859 F.2d 534 (7th Cir. 1989). “29 C.F.R. § 1626.11 . The only plausible reason why the EEOC would consider one communication of information to be a “complaint” and another to be a “charge” is that a “charge” is submitted under circumstances that would lead the EEOC to believe that the complaining party sought…”
Donald E. Diez v. Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co., a Delaware Corp., 88 F.3d 672 (8th Cir. 1996). “29 C.F.R. § 1626.11 . The only plausible reason why the EEOC would consider one communication of information to be a ‘complaint’ and another to be a ‘charge’ is that a ‘charge’ is submitted under circumstances that would lead the EEOC to believe that the complaining party sought…”
James F. DEMPSEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Pac. BELL Co., Et Al., Defendants-Appellees, 789 F.2d 1451 (9th Cir. 1986). “29 C.F.R. § 1626.11 (requiring the EEOC, upon receipt of an ADEA charge, promptly to notify the respondent).”
Greanias v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., Inc., 697 F. Supp. 1025 (N.D. Ill. 1988). “29 C.F.R. § 1626.11 . The only plausible reason why the EEOC would consider one communication of information to be a “complaint” and another to be a “charge” is that a “charge” is submitted under circumstances that would lead the EEOC to believe that the complaining party sought…”
Roberts v. PVH Corp (E.D. Ark. 2023). “117 See 29 C.F.R. § 1626.11 (“Upon receipt of a charge, the Commission shall promptly notify the [employer] that a charge has been filed.”
Donald E. Diez v. MN Mining & Mfg. Co. (8th Cir. 1996). “29 C.F.R. § 1626.11 . The only plausible reason why the EEOC would consider one communication of information to be a `complaint' and -7- another to be a `charge' is that a `charge' is submitted under circumstances that would lead the EEOC to believe that the complaining party…”
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.