29 C.F.R. § 1626.3

Other definitions

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) For the purposes of this part, the term the Act shall mean the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended; the EEOC or Commission shall mean the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or any of its designated representatives; charge shall mean a statement filed with the Commission by or on behalf of an aggrieved person which alleges that the named prospective defendant has engaged in or is about to engage in actions in violation of the Act; complaint shall mean information received from any source, that is not a charge, which alleges that a named prospective defendant has engaged in or is about to engage in actions in violation of the Act; charging party means the person filing a charge; complainant means the person filing a complaint; and respondent means the person named as a prospective defendant in a charge or complaint, or as a result of a Commission-initiated investigation.

[48 FR 140, Jan. 3, 1983, as amended at 85 FR 65219, Oct. 15, 2020]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 25 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1987–2025 · leading case: Fed. Express Corp. v. Holowecki, 552 U.S. 389 (2008).
Fed. Express Corp. v. Holowecki, 552 U.S. 389 (2008). · cites it 6× “8(a) identifies five pieces of information a "charge should contain": (1)-(2) the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of the person making the charge and the charged entity; (3) a statement of facts describing the alleged discriminatory act; (4) the number of employees of…”
Humberto Trujillo v. Rockledge Furniture, 926 F.3d 395 (7th Cir. 2019). “29 C.F.R. § 1626.3 . A charge must be in writing, "name the prospective respondent," and generally allege the discriminatory acts.”
Walter W. Steffen v. Meridian Life Ins. Co., & Meridian Mut. Ins. Co., 859 F.2d 534 (7th Cir. 1989). · cites it 2× “Steffen claims support for his position in the EEOC regulations which define a “charge” as “a statement filed with the Commission by or on behalf of an aggrieved person which alleges that the named prospective defendant has engaged in or is about to engage in actions in…”
Donald E. EARLY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BANKERS LIFE & Cas. Co., Defendant-Appellee, 959 F.2d 75 (7th Cir. 1992). “29 C.F.R. §§ 1626.3 , 1626.8, 1626.8(b). The regulations distinguish between a “charge” and a “complaint,” the latter defined as “information received from any source, that is not a charge, which alleges that a named prospective defendant has” violated one of the statutes.”
Holender v. Mut. Indus. North Inc., 527 F.3d 352 (3rd Cir. 2008). · cites it 2× “3 ] says: “charge shall mean a statement filed with the Commission by or on behalf of an aggrieved person which alleges that the named prospective defendant has engaged in or is about to engage in actions in violation of the Act.” Section 1626.”
Vélez-Ramírez v. Puerto Rico Ex Rel. Sec'y of Just., 827 F.3d 154 (1st Cir. 2016). “She later formalized this charge, see 29 C.F.R. §§ 1626.3 , 1626.6, 1626.8, and the EEOC notified her of her right to sue.”
Carlton H. FOSTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Nat'l BANK OF BOSSIER CITY, Defendant-Appellee, 857 F.2d 1058 (5th Cir. 1988). · cites it 2× “See 29 C.F.R. §§ 1626.3 , 1626.6, 1626.8. 29 C.”
Donald E. Diez v. Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co., a Delaware Corp., 88 F.3d 672 (8th Cir. 1996). “’ A ‘complaint’ is defined to ‘mean information received from any source, that is not a charge, which alleges that a named prospective defendant has engaged in or is about to engage in actions in violation of the [ADEA]_’ 29 C.F.R. § 1626.3 (emphasis added). As noted above, a…”
Ernest Pizio v. HTMT Global Solutions, 555 F. App'x 169 (3rd Cir. 2014). “” 29 C.F.R. § 1626.3 . In Federal Express Corp.”
Grayson v. K Mart Corp., 79 F.3d 1086 (11th Cir. 1996). “” 29 C.F.R. § 1626.3 . Mr. Grayson filed his charge with the EEOC on June 14, 1991 ("Grayson’s charge”).”
Holowecki v. Fed. Express Corp., 440 F.3d 558 (2d Cir. 2006). · cites it 3× “” See 29 C.F.R. §§ 1626.3 , 1626.6, 1626.8. The required content is minimal.”
James v. Fed. Reserve Bank of New York, 471 F. Supp. 2d 226 (E.D.N.Y 2007). “2006) (interpreting 29 C.F.R. §§ 1626.3 , 1626.6, 1626.8). Where a state agency lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the charge, the 180-day limit applies, as if the agency did not exist: “A jurisdiction having a [fair employment practices] agency without subject matter…”
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.