20 C.F.R. § 655.801

What protection do employees have from retaliation?

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

(a) No employer subject to this subpart I or subpart H of this part shall intimidate, threaten, restrain, coerce, blacklist, discharge or in any other manner discriminate against an employee (which term includes a former employee or an applicant for employment) because the employee has—

(1) Disclosed information to the employer, or to any other person, that the employee reasonably believes evidences a violation of sections 212(n) or (t) of the INA or any regulation relating to sections 212(n) or (t), including this subpart I and subpart H of this part and any pertinent regulations of DHS or the Department of Justice; or

(2) Cooperated or sought to cooperate in an investigation or other proceeding concerning the employer's compliance with the requirements of sections 212(n) or (t) of the INA or any regulation relating to sections 212(n) or (t).

(b) It shall be a violation of this section for any employer to engage in the conduct described in paragraph (a) of this section. Such conduct shall be subject to the penalties prescribed by sections 212(n)(2)(C)(ii) or (t)(3)(C)(ii) of the INA and § 655.810(b)(2), i.e., a fine of up to $9,624, disqualification from filing petitions under section 204 or section 214(c) of the INA for at least two years, and such further administrative remedies as the Administrator considers appropriate.

(c) Pursuant to sections 212(n)(2)(C)(v) and (t)(3)(C)(v) of the INA, an H-1B nonimmigrant who has filed a complaint alleging that an employer has discriminated against the employee in violation of paragraph (a)(1) of this section may be allowed to seek other appropriate employment in the United States, provided the employee is otherwise eligible to remain and work in the United States. Such employment may not exceed the maximum period of stay authorized for a nonimmigrant classified under sections 212(n) or (t) of the INA, as applicable. Further information concerning this provision should be sought from the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services of the Department of Homeland Security.

[65 FR 80233, Dec. 20, 2000, as amended at 69 FR 68229, Nov. 23, 2004; 71 FR 35521, June 21, 2006; 81 FR 43448, July 1, 2016; 82 FR 5380, Jan. 18, 2017; 83 FR 11, Jan. 2, 2018; 84 FR 217, Jan. 23, 2019; 85 FR 2296, Jan. 15, 2020; 86 FR 2967, Jan. 14, 2021; 87 FR 2333, Jan. 14, 2022; 88 FR 2214, Jan. 13, 2023; 89 FR 1814, Jan. 11, 2024; 90 FR 1858, Jan. 10, 2025]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2012–2023 · leading case: Dongsheng Huang v. Admin. Review Bd., United States Dep't of Labor, 579 F. App'x 228 (5th Cir. 2014).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Dongsheng Huang v. Admin. Review Bd., United States Dep't of Labor, 579 F. App'x 228 (5th Cir. 2014). “§ 1182; 20 C.F.R. § 655.801 (b). Huang claims that punitive damages need not be explicitly authorized.”

Vinayagam v. US Dept Labor-Adminisrative Review Bd. (D. Nev. 2023). · cites it 2× “3 Next, the Sixteenth Cause of Action is alleged against Defendants Kowsala Rajendra and 4 Swapna Pasham for retaliation in violation of 20 C.F.R. §655.801 . There is, however, no indication 5 6 that 20 C.”

Spaceage Consulting Corp. Vs. Maria Vizconde(l-1196-14, Hudson Cnty. & Statewide) (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2017). “731(c)(10)(i) to require H-1B employees to pay a penalty for ceasing employment prior to the dates in their contracts, and a violation of 20 C.F.R. § 655.801 (a) to intimidate and threaten H-1B employees.”

Russell Childs v. Microsoft Corp., 489 F. App'x 224 (9th Cir. 2012). “Finally, for the first time on appeal, Childs argues that a federal immigration regulation, 20 C.F.R. § 655.801 , provides the basis for his wrongful discharge claim.”

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.