29 C.F.R. § 1626.13
Withdrawal of charge
Charging parties may request withdrawal of a charge. Because the Commission has independent investigative authority, see § 1626.4, it may continue any investigation and may secure relief for all affected persons notwithstanding a request by a charging party to withdraw a charge.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7
cases, 1983–2014 · leading case: Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Johnson & Higgins, Inc., 91 F.3d 1529 (2d Cir. 1996).
Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Johnson & Higgins, Inc., 91 F.3d 1529 (2d Cir. 1996). “See 29 C.F.R. § 1626.13 (1995) (“Because the Commission has independent investigative authority, see § 1626.”
James J. Nicholson v. Cpc Int'l Inc., a Corp., & James R. Eiszner, 877 F.2d 221 (3rd Cir. 1989). “See 29 C.F.R. 1626.13 (Under the ADEA "the Commission has independent investigative authority [and] may continue any investigation and may secure relief for all affected persons notwithstanding a request by a charging party to withdraw a charge.”
Lewis v. Norfolk S. Corp., 271 F. Supp. 2d 807 (E.D. Va. 2003). “The ADEA regulation concerning withdrawal is 29 C.F.R. § 1626.13 , and there is no language authorizing reconsideration, nor does Part 1626 authorize reconsideration under any circumstances.”
Robert Bihler v. The Singer Co., 710 F.2d 96 (3rd Cir. 1983). “138,141 (January 3, 1983) (to be codified at 29 C.F.R. § 1626.13 ). The additional information about such matters as the number of employees or telephone numbers are not statutory or regulatory requisites for making out a charge; they are but aids in expeditious processing.”
Rent-A-Ctr., Inc. v. Iowa Civil Rights Comm'n, 843 N.W.2d 727 (Iowa 2014). “)), with Iowa Admin. Code r. 161-3.8 (3) (authorizing a claimant to withdraw a complaint, but indicating the ICRC can still file its own complaint against the original respondent when it deems it in the public interest).”
Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Kidder, Peabody & Co., Inc., 156 F.3d 298 (2d Cir. 1998). “See 29 C.F.R. § 1626.13 (1996). Thus, the EEOC argues that where an employee agrees to arbitrate but is unwilling to do so, the EEOC should be permitted to proceed in federal court.”
Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Morgan Stanley & Co., 132 F. Supp. 2d 146 (S.D.N.Y. 2000). “Specifically, those regulations provide that a charge may only be withdrawn by the charging party with the consent of the Commission, and only so long as the withdrawal of the charge will not “defeat the purposes of Title VII.” 29 C.F.R. § 1601.”
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.