(a) Discharge of, or discrimination against, an employee because the employee has filed “any complaint * * * under or related to this Act * * *” is prohibited by section 11(c). An example of a complaint made “under” the Act would be an employee request for inspection pursuant to section 8(f). However, this would not be the only type of complaint protected by section 11(c). The range of complaints “related to” the Act is commensurate with the broad remedial purposes of this legislation and the sweeping scope of its application, which entails the full extent of the commerce power. (See Cong. Rec., vol. 116 p. P. 42206 Dec. 17, 1970).
(b) Complaints registered with other Federal agencies which have the authority to regulate or investigate occupational safety and health conditions are complaints “related to” this Act. Likewise, complaints made to State or local agencies regarding occupational safety and health conditions would be “related to” the Act. Such complaints, however, must relate to conditions at the workplace, as distinguished from complaints touching only upon general public safety and health.
(c) Further, the salutary principles of the Act would be seriously undermined if employees were discouraged from lodging complaints about occupational safety and health matters with their employers. (Section 2(1), (2), and (3)). Such complaints to employers, if made in good faith, therefore would be related to the Act, and an employee would be protected against discharge or discrimination caused by a complaint to the employer.
Notes of Decisions
Thomas Perez v. Ohio Bell Tel., 655 F. App'x 404 (6th Cir. 2016).
· cites it 5× “While Congress intended the Secretary to have extensive authority to exercise “broad remedial purposes,” 29 C.F.R. § 1977.9 , against employers who violate the Act or whose employees violate the Act, the Act also contains an anti-discrimination provision intended to shield…”
McLaughlin v. Gastrointestinal Specialists, Inc., 750 A.2d 283 (Pa. 2000).
· cites it 4× “29 C.F.R. § 1977.9 . [9] She then concludes that OSHA's regulations indicate that an Employee's complaints to an employer are protected activity pursuant to the anti-retaliation *288 provisions of OSHA, therefore, she has stated a claim for a wrongful discharge pursuant to the…”
Holien v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 689 P.2d 1292 (Or. 1984).
· cites it 2× “; 29 USC § 660 (c) (1970); 29 CFR § 1977.9 (c) (1975). Correspondingly, we would agree that employers should not be allowed to discharge employees solely for complaining about safety problems.”
Lopez v. Burris Logistics Co., 952 F. Supp. 2d 396 (D. Conn. 2013).
· cites it 3× “See 29 C.F.R. § 1977.9 (captioned “Complaints under or related to the Act”).”
Walsh v. Consol. Freightways, Inc., 563 P.2d 1205 (Or. 1977).
“; 29 USC § 660 (c) (1970); 29 CFR § 1977.9 (c) (1975). Correspondingly, we would agree that employers should not be allowed to discharge employees solely for complaining about safety problems.”
Marshall v. Springville Poultry Farm, Inc., 445 F. Supp. 2 (M.D. Penn. 1977).
· cites it 2× “” The Secretary has interpreted this provision to include complaints filed by an employee with an employer, see 29 C.F.R. § 1977.9 (c) and has filed this action on that basis.”
Grant v. Butler, 590 So. 2d 254 (Ala. 1991).
“§ 660 (c) (1970); 29 C.F.R. § 1977.9 (c) (1975). Correspondingly, we would agree that employers should not be allowed to discharge employees solely for complaining about safety problems.”
Wetherhold v. Radioshack Corp., 339 F. Supp. 2d 670 (E.D. Pa. 2004).
· cites it 2× “Furthermore, the related OSH Act regulations (the “OSHAR”), 29 C.F.R. § 1977.9 (“Complaints under or related to the Act”), provide: (a) Discharge of, or discrimination against, an employee because the employee has filed “any complaint * * * under or related to this Act * * * ”…”
Donovan v. Diplomat Envelope Corp., 587 F. Supp. 1417 (E.D.N.Y 1984).
“1977), the court held that a complaint to an employer is protected under OSHA, a position supported by the regulations, 29 C.F.R. Section 1977.9(e). In Dunlop v.”
McElroy v. SOS Int'l, Inc., 730 F. Supp. 803 (N.D. Ill. 1989).
“F.R. 1977.15 et seq. McElroy is not seeking a remedy under OSHA, however.”
— 29 C.F.R. § 1977.9(b) — 2 cases
— 29 C.F.R. § 1977.9(c) — 2 cases
— 29 C.F.R. § 1977.9(e) — 1 case
Donovan v. Diplomat Envelope Corp., 587 F. Supp. 1417 (E.D.N.Y 1984).
“1977), the court held that a complaint to an employer is protected under OSHA, a position supported by the regulations, 29 C.F.R. Section 1977.9(e). In Dunlop v.”
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.