On December 3, 2014, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued a press release announcing that it had filed a lawsuit against a Charlotte-based employer in federal court. In this action, the EEOC argues that the employer violated a settlement agreement between them by not paying monetary policy facilities to alleged victims of sexual harassment and retaliation. This case demonstrates not only the EEOC`s willingness to aggressively pursue corrective measures on behalf of victims of discrimination, but also the potential legal risks associated with non-compliance with the terms of the transaction. (a) Any agreement reached by the parties at each stage of the appeal process, entered into knowingly and voluntarily by the parties, binds the two parties. The final appeal, which has not been the subject of a complaint or civil action, binds the Agency. If the complainant believes that the Agency has not complied with the terms of an agreement or a transaction decision, the complainant informs the EEO Director in writing of his alleged non-compliance within 30 days that the complainant was aware or should have been aware of the alleged non-compliance. The complainant may request that the terms of the transaction agreement be explicitly implemented or that the complaint be reinstated for the subsequent processing of the points. On appeal, the EEOC decides whether the Agency complies with the rules. If the EEOC finds that the Agency is violating the worker`s no-fault transaction agreement, there are only two remedies: 1) the compliance order; or 2) to re-pay the claim that underlies the transaction agreement. On the other hand, if an employee files a complaint against discrimination up to the EEOC and does not apply, the employee can file a complaint with the U.S.
District Court. The Circuit Court found that 29 from 1614,504 a of the EEOC settlement were not proceeding with an action to enforce a transaction agreement, but only an opportunity to pursue the underlying complaint of a settlement agreement if, initially, it is established that the Agency is not compliant. The Agency decided that it was in compliance with the transaction agreement. The staff member then appealed the Agency`s decision to the EEOC, finding that the Agency complied with the transaction contract. The employee moved for a re-examination, but the EEOC denied this. The employee then filed a complaint with the Montana Federal District Court, which was then referred to a federal district court in Wyoming. The Wyoming District Court upheld the jurisdiction to enforce the transaction contract on the subject. However, prior to the hearing, the regional court quashed and dismissed the case because of the lack of jurisdiction. An employee of the Ministry of the Interior requested a transfer from his sedentary position to a more active position, believing that such a position would be more advantageous for the health he had suffered as a result of a car accident.