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 C—Miscellaneous Provisions

29 C.F.R. § 1978.112

Judicial review

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

(a) Within 60 days after the issuance of a final order (including a decision issued by the Secretary upon his or her discretionary review) for which judicial review is available, any person adversely affected or aggrieved by the order may file a petition for review of the order in the United States Court of Appeals for the circuit in which the violation allegedly occurred or the circuit in which the person resided on the date of the violation.

(b) A final order is not subject to judicial review in any criminal or other civil proceeding.

(c) If a timely petition for review is filed, the record of a case, including the record of proceedings before the ALJ, will be transmitted by the ARB or the ALJ, as the case may be, to the appropriate court pursuant to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and the local rules of such court.

[77 FR 44134, July 27, 2012, as amended at 85 FR 30620, May 20, 2020]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1987–2023 · leading case: Calmat Co. v. U.S. Dep't of Labor, Admin. Review Bd. Robert E. Germann, 364 F.3d 1117 (9th Cir. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Calmat Co. v. U.S. Dep't of Labor, Admin. Review Bd. Robert E. Germann, 364 F.3d 1117 (9th Cir. 2004). · cites it 4× “” ■ 29 C.F.R. § 1978.112 (a)(1). “The Secretary [of Labor’s delegates] may proceed with the investigation and the issuance of findings and orders regardless of the pendency of other proceedings.”
Brock v. Roadway Express, Inc., 481 U.S. 252 (1987). · cites it 2× “, at 42095 (proposed 29 CFR § 1978.112 ) (interpreting § 405 to allow concurrent jurisdiction over employee complaints before arbitration boards under collective-bargaining agreements and before the Secretary under the statute).”
Martin v. Yellow Freight Sys., Inc., 793 F. Supp. 461 (S.D.N.Y. 1992). · cites it 4× “See 29 C.F.R. § 1978.112 (a). What the Secretary suggests is that the deferral to the outcome of an arbitration is a finding that the complaint lacks merit, equivalent to the findings issued after a preliminary investigation.”
Bliss v. Stow Mills, Inc., 786 A.2d 815 (N.H. 2001). · cites it 2× “” 29 C.F.R. § 1978.112 (a)(1)(A) (2000). Indeed, the regulations indicate that “[wjhere [a] complainant is in fact pursuing *555 remedies other than those provided by section [31105], the Secretary [of Labor] may, in his or her discretion, postpone a determination of the section…”
Yellow Freight Sys., Inc. v. Robert B. Reich, Sec'y of Labor James R. Hornbuckle, Jr., 8 F.3d 980 (4th Cir. 1993). “While the regulations grant the ALJ discretion to defer to such proceedings, 29 C.F.R. § 1978.112 , the ALJ did not defer here because the arbitration panel’s five-word decision did not adequately show that "the outcome of the proceedings was not repugnant to the purpose and…”
Greatwide Dedicated Transp. II, LLC v. United States Dep't of Labor, 72 F.4th 544 (4th Cir. 2023). “§ 31105 (d) and 29 C.F.R. § 1978.112 . II. “Under the scheme established by Congress, the Secretary of Labor makes final determinations on [STAA] violations,” which are “subject to appellate court review.”
David C. Parten v. Consol. Freightways Corp. of Delaware, 923 F.2d 580 (8th Cir. 1991). “Section 2305(a) offers protection for employees who have, “filed any complaint or instituted or caused to be instituted any proceeding” relating to the violation of a commercial motor vehicle safety rule.”
Conley v. Yellow Freight Sys., Inc., 521 F. Supp. 2d 713 (E.D. Tenn. 2007). “29 C.F.R. § 1978.112 (a). Conley argues that this provision suggests that complaints pursuant to Section 405 are intended to combine with other avenues of relief, not pre-empt them.”
Germann v. Dep't of Labor, 206 F. App'x 662 (9th Cir. 2006). “” 29 C.F.R. § 1978.112 (c). We give substantial deference to an agency’s interpretation of its own regulations.”
Harry Smith v. Sec'y of Labor, 659 F. App'x 296 (6th Cir. 2016). “Within 60 days after the issuance of a final order by the Secretary of Labor, any person adversely affected by the order may file a petition for review of that order in a federal appeals court.”
Andrews v. Fairview Health Servs. (D. Minnesota 2022). “29 C.F.R. § 1978.112 . We hold that Minnesota’s statute is not preempted.”
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.