29 C.F.R. § 1626.5
Where to submit complaints and charges
Complaints and charges may be made through the EEOC's designated digital systems, in person, by telephone, by facsimile, or by mail to any EEOC office or any designated representative of the Commission. The current addresses of the EEOC's offices appear at www.eeoc.gov.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4
cases, 1996–2014 · leading case: Robert SWAIM, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MOLTAN Co., Defendant-Appellant, 73 F.3d 711 (7th Cir. 1996).
Robert SWAIM, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MOLTAN Co., Defendant-Appellant, 73 F.3d 711 (7th Cir. 1996). “The current Code of Federal Regulations provides for such administrative complaints at 29 C.F.R. §§ 1626.5 , 1626.6 (1995). 2 . Moltan also requested leave to file an answer to Swaim’s complaint, in which it set forth its allegedly meritorious defenses.”
Fugate v. Dolgencorp, LLC, 555 F. App'x 600 (7th Cir. 2014). “See 29 C.F.R. § 1626.5 . And the investigator could have recognized — indeed, presumably did recognize — that the 180-day deadline would expire in a few days and thus deemed Fu-gate’s charge to have been made by phone.”
Watson v. Tennessee Valley Auth., 867 F. Supp. 2d 1215 (N.D. Ala. 2012). “” 29 C.F.R. § 1626.5 . Based on these differences, the court is of the opinion that a section 626(d) “charge” and a section 633a(d) “notice of intent to sue” are not interchangeable administrative devices.”
Virginia Fugate v. Dolgencorp LLC (7th Cir. 2014). “See 29 C.F.R. § 1626.5 . And the investigator could have recognized—indeed, presumably did recognize—that the 180‐day deadline would expire in a few days and thus deemed Fugate’s charge to have been made by phone.”
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.