29 C.F.R. § 1979.103

Filing of discrimination complaint

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

(a) Who may file. An employee who believes that he or she has been discriminated against by an air carrier or contractor or subcontractor of an air carrier in violation of the Act may file, or have filed by any person on the employee's behalf, a complaint alleging such discrimination.

(b) Nature of filing. No particular form of complaint is required, except that a complaint must be in writing and should include a full statement of the acts and omissions, with pertinent dates, which are believed to constitute the violations.

(c) Place of filing. The complaint should be filed with the OSHA Area Director responsible for enforcement activities in the geographical area where the employee resides or was employed, but may be filed with any OSHA officer or employee. Addresses and telephone numbers for these officials are set forth in local directories and at the following Internet address: http://www.osha.gov.

(d) Time for filing. Within 90 days after an alleged violation of the Act occurs (i.e., when the discriminatory decision has been both made and communicated to the complainant), an employee who believes that he or she has been discriminated against in violation of the Act may file, or have filed by any person on the employee's behalf, a complaint alleging such discrimination. The date of the postmark, facsimile transmittal, or e-mail communication will be considered to be the date of filing; if the complaint is filed in person, by hand-delivery, or other means, the complaint is filed upon receipt.

(e) Relationship to section 11(c) complaints. A complaint filed under AIR21 that alleges facts which would constitute a violation of section 11(c) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, 29 U.S.C. 660(c), shall be deemed to be a complaint filed under both AIR21 and section 11(c). Similarly, a complaint filed under section 11(c) that alleges facts that would constitute a violation of AIR21 shall be deemed to be a complaint filed under both AIR21 and section 11(c). Normal procedures and timeliness requirements for investigations under the respective laws and regulations will be followed.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2003–2024 · leading case: Murray v. TXU Corp., 279 F. Supp. 2d 799 (N.D. Tex. 2003).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Murray v. TXU Corp., 279 F. Supp. 2d 799 (N.D. Tex. 2003). · cites it 2× “at 9 (citing 29 C.F.R. §§ 1979.103 (c) & 1980.103(c)).”

Bombardier, Inc. v. United States Dep't of Labor, 145 F. Supp. 3d 21 (D.D.C. 2015). · cites it 2× “§ 42121(b)(1); 29 C.F.R. § 1979.103 (d). Department of Labor regulations oblige the complainant to file the complaint with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) of the United States Department of Labor.”

Williams v. United States Dep't of Labor, 447 F. App'x 853 (9th Cir. 2011). “See 29 C.F.R. § 1979.103 (d) (requiring a complainant file an administrative complaint “[w]ithin 90 days after an alleged violation of [AIR 21] occurs”); Stoll v.”

Michael Neely v. Usdol (9th Cir. 2024). “§ 42121 (b)(1) (discrimination complaints must be filed within 90 days after an alleged violation); 29 C.F.R. § 1979.103 (d) (same); see also Nat’l R.”

Vernon Jones v. LABR (7th Cir. 2014). “§ 42121 ; 29 C.F.R. § 1979.103 . (To obtain relief under AIR 21, a complainant must first show by a preponderance of the evidence that he engaged in protected activity and that the protected activity was a contributing factor in the employer’s adverse employment action.”

Herchak v. U.S. Dep't of Labor, 125 F. App'x 102 (9th Cir. 2005). “§ 42121 (b)(1) and 29 C.F.R. § 1979.103 , 2 alleging that his employer, America West Airlines, Inc.”

Jones v. United States Dep't of Labor, 556 F. App'x 535 (7th Cir. 2014). “§ 42121 ; 29 C.F.R. § 1979.103 . (To obtain relief under AIR 21, a complainant must first show by a preponderance of the evidence that he engaged in protected activity and that the protected activity was a contributing factor in the employer’s adverse employment action.”

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.