29 C.F.R. § 1626.8

Contents of charge; amendment of charge

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

(a) In addition to the requirements of § 1626.6, each charge should contain the following:

(1) The full name and contact information of the person making the charge except as provided in § 1626.8(d) below;

(2) The full name and contact information of the person against whom the charge is made, if known (hereinafter referred to as the respondent);

(3) A clear and concise statement of the facts, including pertinent dates, constituting the alleged unlawful employment practices;

(4) If known, the approximate number of employees of the prospective defendant employer or members of the prospective defendant labor organization.

(5) A statement disclosing whether proceedings involving the alleged unlawful employment practice have been commenced before a State agency charged with the enforcement of fair employment practice laws and, if so, the date of such commencement and the name of the agency.

(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (a) of this section, a charge is sufficient when the Commission receives from the person making the charge either a written statement or information reduced to writing by the Commission that conforms to the requirements of § 1626.6.

(c) A charge may be amended to clarify or amplify allegations made therein. Such amendments and amendments alleging additional acts which constitute unlawful employment practices related to or growing out of the subject matter of the original charge will relate back to the date the charge was first received. A charge that has been so amended shall not again be referred to the appropriate State agency.

(d) A charge that any person has engaged in or is engaging in an unlawful employment practice within the meaning of the ADEA may be made by or on behalf of any person claiming to be aggrieved. A charge on behalf of a person claiming to be aggrieved may be made by any person, agency, or organization. The written charge need not identify by name the person on whose behalf it is made. The person making the charge, however, must provide the Commission with the name and contact information of the person on whose behalf the charge is made. During the Commission investigation, Commission personnel shall verify the authorization of such charge by the person on whose behalf the charge is made. Any such person may request that the Commission shall keep his or her identity confidential. However, such request for confidentiality shall not prevent the Commission from disclosing the identity to Federal, State or local agencies that have agreed to keep such information confidential. If this condition is violated by a recipient agency, the Commission may decline to honor subsequent requests for such information.

(e) The person claiming to be aggrieved has the responsibility to provide the Commission with notice of a change in contact information so that he or she can be contacted when necessary during the Commission's consideration of the charge.

[48 FR 140, Jan. 3, 1983, as amended at 85 FR 65219, Oct. 15, 2020]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 77 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1983–2025 · leading case: Fed. Express Corp. v. Holowecki, 552 U.S. 389 (2008).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Fed. Express Corp. v. Holowecki, 552 U.S. 389 (2008). · cites it 8× “B In support of her position that the Intake Questionnaire she filed, taken together with the attached six-page affidavit, meets the regulatory definition of a charge, respondent places considerable emphasis on what might be described as the regulations' catchall or savings…”

Williams v. CSX Transp. Co., 643 F.3d 502 (6th Cir. 2011). · cites it 2× “Compare 29 C.F.R. § 1626.8 (a)-(b), with 29 C.F.R.”

Laura Holtz v. Rockefeller & Co., Inc., 258 F.3d 62 (2d Cir. 2001). “29 C.F.R. § 1626.8 (setting forth similar requirements for EEOC charges alleging violations of ADEA).”

Anthony W. Bost v. Fed. Express Corp., 372 F.3d 1233 (11th Cir. 2004). · cites it 2× “Even if a charge does not contain the suggested information, however, the EEOC considers the charge sufficient when the EEOC receives from the charging party “a written statement or information reduced to writing .”

Walter W. Steffen v. Meridian Life Ins. Co., & Meridian Mut. Ins. Co., 859 F.2d 534 (7th Cir. 1989). · cites it 3× “” 29 C.F.R. § 1626.8 (b). 29 C.F.R. § 1626.”

Humberto Trujillo v. Rockledge Furniture, 926 F.3d 395 (7th Cir. 2019). “" 29 C.F.R. § 1626.8 (a)(2) & (b). Upon receiving a charge, the EEOC is supposed to serve notice on "persons named in such charge as prospective defendants" and to "seek to eliminate any alleged unlawful practice by informal methods of conciliation, conference, and persuasion.”

Manning v. Chevron Chem. Co., LLC, 332 F.3d 874 (5th Cir. 2003). “; see 29 C.F.R. § 1626.8 (c). Manning contends that his amendment, which added a disability discrimination claim, is sufficiently related to the subject matter of his original charge (ie.”

Christine Evans v. Tech. Applications & Serv. Co., 80 F.3d 954 (4th Cir. 1996). “EEOC regulations provide that when an amendment is filed outside the applicable limitations period, it may be considered timely if it involves claims “related to or growing out of’ the original charge.”

Larry Haynes v. Dist. of Columbia Water, 924 F.3d 519 (D.C. Cir. 2019). “12(b) and 29 C.F.R. 1626.8(c), this questionnaire may serve as a charge if it meets the elements of a charge.”

Bill Clark, Herbert Futch, Austin Hurst, Louis Sliker & William Barrineau v. Coats & Clark, Inc., 865 F.2d 1237 (11th Cir. 1989). · cites it 2× “1988) (completed EEOC intake questionnaire meets the requirements of 29 C.F.R. § 1626.8 (b) and 29 U.S.C. § 626 (d)(1)); Foster v.”

Zielinski v. Whitehall Manor, Inc., 899 F. Supp. 2d 344 (E.D. Pa. 2012). · cites it 3× “(5) A statement disclosing whether proceedings involving the alleged unlawful employment practice have been commenced before a State agency charged with the enforcement of fair employment practice laws and, if so, the date of such commencement and the name of the agency.”

Cortez v. Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n, 585 F. Supp. 2d 1273 (D.N.M. 2007). · cites it 2× “§ 626 (d); 29 C.F.R. § 1626.8 . The EEOC’s obligation is not to file or amend charges on the charging party’s behalf, although it “may render assistance in the filing of a charge” under 29 C.”

Show all 77 citing cases →

— 29 C.F.R. § 1626.8(b) — 5 cases

Fed. Express Corp. v. Holowecki, 552 U.S. 389 (2008). “B In support of her position that the Intake Questionnaire she filed, taken together with the attached six-page affidavit, meets the regulatory definition of a charge, respondent places considerable emphasis on what might be described as the regulations' catchall or savings…”

Bill Clark, Herbert Futch, Austin Hurst, Louis Sliker & William Barrineau v. Coats & Clark, Inc., 865 F.2d 1237 (11th Cir. 1989). “1988) (completed EEOC intake questionnaire meets the requirements of 29 C.F.R. § 1626.8 (b) and 29 U.S.C. § 626 (d)(1)); Foster v.”

Price v. City of New York, 797 F. Supp. 2d 219 (E.D.N.Y 2011).

Wolf v. East Texas Med. Ctr., 515 F. Supp. 2d 682 (E.D. Tex. 2007).

Cross v. Foods Inc., 881 F. Supp. 2d 1012 (S.D. Iowa 2012).

— 29 C.F.R. § 1626.8(c) — 3 cases

Larry Haynes v. Dist. of Columbia Water, 924 F.3d 519 (D.C. Cir. 2019). “12(b) and 29 C.F.R. 1626.8(c), this questionnaire may serve as a charge if it meets the elements of a charge.”

Jones v. Bank of Am., 985 F. Supp. 2d 1320 (M.D. Fla. 2013).

Andrews v. 1788 Chicken, LLC (S.D. Miss. 2025).

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.