C.F.R.
»
Title 29
» CHAPTER XVII—OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR › PART 1978—PROCEDURES FOR THE HANDLING OF RETALIATION COMPLAINTS UNDER THE EMPLOYEE PROTECTION PROVISION OF THE SURFACE TRANSPORTATION ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1982 (STAA), AS AMENDED › Subpart A—Complaints, Investigations, Findings, and Preliminary Orders
(a) This part sets forth, the procedures for, and interpretations of, the employee protection (whistleblower) provision of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 (STAA), 49 U.S.C. 31105, as amended, which protects employees from retaliation because the employee has engaged in, or is perceived to have engaged in, protected activity pertaining to commercial motor vehicle safety, health, or security matters.
(b) This part establishes procedures under STAA for the expeditious handling of retaliation complaints filed by employees, or by persons acting on their behalf. These rules, together with those rules codified at 29 CFR part 18, set forth the procedures for submission of complaints, investigations, issuance of findings and preliminary orders, objections to findings and orders, litigation before administrative law judges (ALJs), post-hearing administrative review, and withdrawals and settlements. This part also sets forth interpretations of STAA.
Notes of Decisions
Martin v. Yellow Freight Sys., Inc., 793 F. Supp. 461 (S.D.N.Y. 1992).
“See 29 C.F.R. 1978.100 et seq. If the violator has filed the objections, the Assistant Secretary of Labor is deemed to be the prosecuting party and the complainant is also a party.”
Copart, Inc. v. Admin. Review Bd., 184 F. App'x 711 (10th Cir. 2006).
· cites it 2× “The regulations implementing Section 405 of the STAA are found at 29 C.F.R. §§ 1978.100 through 1978.115. Under 29 C.”
Harry Smith v. Sec'y of Labor, 659 F. App'x 296 (6th Cir. 2016).
“Because the purpose of the Act is to “protect! ] employees from retaliation,” 29 C.F.R. § 1978.100 , the Secretary’s interpretation that a person liable under the Act must exercise control of the employ-' ee’s employment is reasonable.”
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.