(a) Potential charging parties will be advised that, pursuant to section 7(d) (1) and (2) of the Act, no civil suit may be commenced by an individual until 60 days after a charge has been filed on the subject matter of the suit, and such charge shall be filed with the Commission or its designated agent within 180 days of the alleged discriminatory action, or, in a case where the alleged discriminatory action occurs in a State which has its own age discrimination law and authority administering that law, within 300 days of the alleged discriminatory action, or 30 days after receipt of notice of termination of State proceedings, whichever is earlier.
(b) For purposes of determining the date of filing with the Commission, the following applies:
(1) Charges filed digitally: Date of transmission;
(2) Charges filed by mail:
(i) Date of postmark, if legible,
(ii) Date of letter, if postmark is illegible,
(iii) Date of receipt by Commission, or its designated agent, if postmark and letter date are illegible and/or cannot be accurately affixed;
(3) Written charges filed in person: Date of receipt;
(4) Oral charges filed in person or by telephone, as reduced to writing: Date of oral communication received by Commission.
[48 FR 140, Jan. 3, 1983, as amended at 68 FR 70152, Dec. 17, 2003; 85 FR 65219, Oct. 15, 2020]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
32
cases (
11 in the last 5 years), 1987–2026 · leading case:
Stiefel v. Bechtel Corp., 624 F.3d 1240 (9th Cir. 2010).
Stiefel v. Bechtel Corp., 624 F.3d 1240 (9th Cir. 2010).
· cites it 2× “§ 2000e-5(e)(l); 29 C.F.R. § 1626.7 (a). We reverse that order because Stiefel’s DFEH charge was deemed filed with the EEOC pursuant to a Worksharing Agreement” between the DFEH and the EEOC.”
Trachtenberg v. Dep't of Educ., 937 F. Supp. 2d 460 (S.D.N.Y. 2013).
“A, it is not clear whether her charge would be deemed filed on December 9, 2011, or December 13, 2011, see 29 C.F.R. § 1626.7 (b)(1) (charges filed by mail deemed filed on date of postmark) & (2) (charges filed in person deemed filed on date of receipt), and therefore whether…”
Fugate v. Dolgencorp, LLC, 555 F. App'x 600 (7th Cir. 2014).
· cites it 2× “Fugate cites 29 C.F.R. § 1626.7 (b)(3), which states that a charge made orally or by telephone and later reduced to writing is deemed filed with the EEOC on the date the oral communication is made.”
Cuddy v. Wal-Mart Super Ctr., Inc., 993 F. Supp. 962 (W.D. Va. 1998).
“See 29 C.F.R. §§ 1626.7 (c)(3) (1997). • 6 . Cuddy also contends that the limitations period in this case is subject to equitable tolling and estoppel.”
Berkoski v. Ashland Reg'l Med. Ctr., 951 F. Supp. 544 (M.D. Penn. 1997).
“Under applicable regulations, see 29 C.F.R. §§ 1626.7 (c)(1)(iii), 1626.10(b), (c), PHRC’s receipt of Berkoski’s complaint was the equivalent of Berkoski filing the charge with the EEOC on that date.”
— 29 C.F.R. § 1626.7(a) — 1 case
— 29 C.F.R. § 1626.7(b) — 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.