20 C.F.R. § 655.807

How may someone who is not an “aggrieved party” allege violations, and how will those allegations be processed?

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

(a) Persons who are not aggrieved parties may submit information concerning possible violations of the provisions described in § 655.805(a)(1) through (4) and (a)(7) through (9). No particular form is required to submit the information, except that the information shall be submitted in writing or, if oral, shall be reduced to writing by the Wage and Hour Division official who receives the information. An optional form shall be available to be used in setting forth the information. The information provided shall include:

(1) The identity of the person submitting the information and the person's relationship, if any, to the employer or other information concerning the person's basis for having knowledge of the employer's employment practices or its compliance with the requirements of this subpart I and subpart H of this part; and

(2) A description of the possible violation, including a description of the facts known to the person submitting the information, in sufficient detail for the Secretary to determine if there is reasonable cause to believe that the employer has committed a willful violation of the provisions described in § 655.805(a)(1), (2), (3), (4), (7), (8), or (9).

(b) The Administrator may interview the person submitting the information as appropriate to obtain further information to determine whether the requirements of this section are met. In addition, the person submitting information under this section shall be informed that his or her identity will not be disclosed to the employer without his or her permission.

(c) Information concerning possible violations must be submitted not later than 12 months after the latest date on which the alleged violation(s) were committed. The 12-month period shall be applied in the manner described in § 655.806(a)(5).

(d) Upon receipt of the information, the Administrator shall promptly review the information submitted and determine:

(1) Does the source likely possess knowledge of the employer's practices or employment conditions or the employer's compliance with the requirements of subpart H of this part?

(2) Has the source provided specific credible information alleging a violation of the requirements of the conditions described in § 655.805(a)(1), (2), (3), (4), (7), (8), or (9)?

(3) Does the information in support of the allegations appear to provide reasonable cause to believe that the employer has committed a violation of the provisions described in § 655.805(a)(1), (2), (3), (4), (7), (8), or (9), and that

(i) The alleged violation is willful?

(ii) The employer has engaged in a pattern or practice of violations? or

(iii) The employer has committed substantial violations, affecting multiple employees?

(e) “Information” within the meaning of this section does not include information from an officer or employee of the Department of Labor unless it was obtained in the course of a lawful investigation, and does not include information submitted by the employer to the DHS or the Secretary in securing the employment of an H-1B nonimmigrant.

(f)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (f)(2) of this section, where the Administrator has received information from a source other than an aggrieved party which satisfies all of the requirements of paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section, or where the Administrator or another agency of the Department obtains such information in a lawful investigation under this or any other section of the INA or any other Act, the Administrator (by mail or facsimile transmission) shall promptly notify the employer that the information has been received, describe the nature of the allegation in sufficient detail to permit the employer to respond, and request that the employer respond to the allegation within 10 days of its receipt of the notification. The Administrator shall not identify the source or information which would reveal the identity of the source without his or her permission.

(2) The Administrator may dispense with notification to the employer of the alleged violations if the Administrator determines that such notification might interfere with an effort to secure the employer's compliance. This determination shall not be subject to review in any administrative proceeding and shall not be subject to judicial review.

(g) After receipt of any response to the allegations provided by the employer, the Administrator will promptly review all of the information received and determine whether the allegations should be referred to the Secretary for a determination whether an investigation should be commenced by the Administrator.

(h) If the Administrator refers the allegations to the Secretary, the Secretary shall make a determination as to whether to authorize an investigation under this section.

(1) No investigation shall be commenced unless the Secretary (or the Deputy Secretary or other Acting Secretary in the absence or disability) personally authorizes the investigation and certifies—

(i) That the information provided under paragraph (a) of this section or obtained pursuant to a lawful investigation by the Department of Labor provides reasonable cause to believe that the employer has committed a violation of the provisions described in § 655.805(a)(1), (2), (3), (4), (7), (8), or (9);

(ii) That there is reasonable cause to believe the alleged violations are willful, that the employer has engaged in a pattern or practice of such violations, or that the employer has committed substantial violations, affecting multiple employees; and

(iii) That the other requirements of paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section have been met.

(2) No hearing shall be available from a decision by the Administrator declining to refer allegations addressed by this section to the Secretary, and none shall be available from a decision by the Secretary certifying or declining to certify that an investigation is warranted.

(i) If the Secretary issues a certification, an investigation shall be conducted and a determination issued within 30 days after the certification is received by the local Wage and Hour office undertaking the investigation. The time for the investigation may be increased upon the agreement of the employer and the Administrator or, if for reasons outside of the control of the Administrator, additional time is necessary to obtain information needed from the employer or other sources to determine whether a violation has occurred.

(j) In the event that the Administrator seeks a prevailing wage determination from ETA pursuant to § 655.731(d), or advice as to prevailing working conditions from ETA pursuant to § 655.732(c)(2), the 30-day investigation period shall be suspended from the date of the Administrator's request to the date of the Administrator's receipt of the wage determination (or, in the event that the employer challenges the wage determination through the Employment Service complaint system, to the date of the completion of such complaint process).

(k) Following the investigation, the Administrator shall issue a determination in accordance with to § 655.815.

(l) This section shall expire on September 30, 2003 unless section 212(n)(2)(G) of the INA is extended by future legislative action. Absent such extension, no investigation shall be certified by the Secretary under this section after that date; however, any investigation certified on or before September 30, 2003 may be completed.

[65 FR 80234, Dec. 20, 2000]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2015–2022 · leading case: Gupta v. Perez, 101 F. Supp. 3d 437 (D.N.J. 2015).
Gupta v. Perez, 101 F. Supp. 3d 437 (D.N.J. 2015). · cites it 8× “715 ; (3) on behalf of a current H-1B worker as a “credible information source,” see 20 C.F.R. § 655.807 ; 8 and (4) on behalf of a current H-1B worker (the same worker as alleged in (2) above) as a worker in a specialty occupation in non-productive status within 12 months of…”
Gupta v. Sec'y United States Dep't of Labor, 649 F. App'x 119 (3rd Cir. 2016). · cites it 2× “To the extent that Gupta *123 sought review of the ARB’s decision to affirm the ALJ’s denial of his request to hear his complaint as a “credible source” under 20 C.F.R. § 655.807 , we agree that the decision is unreviewable.”
Greater Missouri Med. Pro-Care Providers, Inc. v. Perez, 812 F.3d 1132 (8th Cir. 2015). · cites it 2× “nvestigatory powers the ARB authorized under the aggrieved-party provisions, the dissent determined the INA required that if the Secretary received credible information of other potential violations in the course of an existing investigation, the Secretary should expand the…”
Broadgate, Inc. v. Sec'y, Dep't of Labor (E.D. Mich. 2022). “And that court noted that “20 C.F.R. § 655.807 authorize[s] the Secretary to investigate certain types of alleged violations when the Secretary receives credible information about such violations from a reliable source, which could include information discovered in the course of…”
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.