29 C.F.R. § 1626.9
Referral to and from State agencies; referral States
The Commission may refer all charges to any appropriate State agency and will encourage State agencies to refer charges to the Commission in order to assure that the prerequisites for private law suits, as set out in section 14(b) of the Act, are met. Charges so referred shall be deemed to have been filed with the Commission in accordance with the specifications contained in § 1626.7(b). The Commission may process any charge at any time, notwithstanding provisions for referral to and from appropriate State agencies.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13
cases, 1986–2008 · leading case: Alvin PROMISEL, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FIRST Am. ARTIFICIAL FLOWERS, INC., Defendant-Appellant, 943 F.2d 251 (1st Cir. 1991).
Alvin PROMISEL, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FIRST Am. ARTIFICIAL FLOWERS, INC., Defendant-Appellant, 943 F.2d 251 (1st Cir. 1991). “The EEOC conceded jurisdiction to the Division of Human Rights, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1626.9 , and the latter commenced an investigation.”
Astoria Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Solimino, 501 U.S. 104 (1991). “It would, indeed, invite further capricious anomalies as well, for whether age-discrimination claims are investigated first by the EEOC or by state authorities is a matter over which the complainant has no control, see 29 CFR §§1626.9 , 1626.10 (1990); whether or not he might…”
Schuler v. Pricewaterhousecoopers, LLP, 514 F.3d 1365 (D.C. Cir. 2008). “Counsel nonetheless sought to protect his client by asking the EEOC to cross-file his charge with all relevant state agencies, including the DCOHR — a request that made sense given Commission regulations empowering it to “refer all charges to any appropriate State agency .”
James Duggan v. Bd. of Educ. of East Chicago Heights, Dist. No. 169, Cook Cnty., Illinois, 818 F.2d 1291 (7th Cir. 1987). “29 C.F.R. § 1626.9 (1986). 12 . The EEOC does accord substantial weight in its ADEA investigations to the findings of state agencies even though the EEOC’s position is that it is not required to do so by law.”
Martel v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 738 F. Supp. 53 (E.D.N.Y 1990). “The complaint was forwarded to the New York State Division of Human Rights for initial processing pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1626.9 (1989). On July 12, 1989, Martel commenced this action alleging age discrimination in violation of both federal and state law.”
Shaver v. Corry Hiebert Corp., 936 F. Supp. 313 (W.D. Pa. 1996). “See 29 C.F.R. § 1626.9 . The EEOC made such a reference in this case.”
Calderón-Trujillo v. Ready Mix Concrete, Inc., 635 F. Supp. 95 (D.P.R. 1986). “In addition, on February 21, 1984 the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission certified the Puerto Rico Department of Labor and Human Resources as a 706 designated agency.”
Kloos v. Carter-Day Co., 799 F.2d 397 (8th Cir. 1986). “However, because both parties agree that the eleven opt-in plaintiffs were dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction we will proceed on that basis.”
Nagle v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins., 767 F. Supp. 67 (S.D.N.Y. 1991). “29 C.F.R. § 1626.9 (1990); 29 U.S.C. § 633 (b) (1985).”
Brudne v. Amalgamated Trust & Sav. Bank, 627 F. Supp. 458 (N.D. Ill. 1986). “Illinois is a deferral state; see 29 C.F.R. § 1626.9 (b). 6 . Bank R.Mem. 3 originally asserted ADEA §§ 626(d) and 633(b) required Brudne to file her discrimination charge with the Illinois Department of Human Rights ("IDHR”) within Illinois’ 180-day limitation period (see Ill.”
Am. Ass'n of Retired Persons v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., 677 F. Supp. 351 (E.D. Pa. 1987). “For a listing of deferral states, see 29 C.F.R. § 1626.9 . 8 . In its reply memorandum, defendant concedes that the record is incomplete concerning the date the ERO program was announced to plaintiffs.”
Ode v. Omtvedt, 883 F. Supp. 1308 (D. Neb. 1995). “29 C.F.R. 1626.9(b) (1994). 2 Thus, Ode had 300 days within which to file his discrimination charge with the EEOC.”
— 29 C.F.R. § 1626.9(b) — 1 case
Ode v. Omtvedt, 883 F. Supp. 1308 (D. Neb. 1995). “29 C.F.R. 1626.9(b) (1994). 2 Thus, Ode had 300 days within which to file his discrimination charge with the EEOC.”
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.