29 C.F.R. § 1979.104

Investigation

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

(a) Upon receipt of a complaint in the investigating office, the Assistant Secretary will notify the named person of the filing of the complaint, of the allegations contained in the complaint, and of the substance of the evidence supporting the complaint (redacted to protect the identity of any confidential informants). The Assistant Secretary will also notify the named person of his or her rights under paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section and paragraph (e) of § 1979.110. A copy of the notice to the named person will also be provided to the Federal Aviation Administration.

(b) A complaint of alleged violation will be dismissed unless the complainant has made a prima facie showing that protected behavior or conduct was a contributing factor in the unfavorable personnel action alleged in the complaint.

(1) The complaint, supplemented as appropriate by interviews of the complainant, must allege the existence of facts and evidence to make a prima facie showing as follows:

(i) The employee engaged in a protected activity or conduct;

(ii) The named person knew or suspected, actually or constructively, that the employee engaged in the protected activity;

(iii) The employee suffered an unfavorable personnel action; and

(iv) The circumstances were sufficient to raise the inference that the protected activity was a contributing factor in the unfavorable action.

(2) For purposes of determining whether to investigate, the complainant will be considered to have met the required burden if the complaint on its face, supplemented as appropriate through interviews of the complainant, alleges the existence of facts and either direct or circumstantial evidence to meet the required showing, i.e., to give rise to an inference that the named person knew or suspected that the employee engaged in protected activity and that the protected activity was a contributing factor in the unfavorable personnel action. Normally the burden is satisfied, for example, if the complaint shows that the adverse personnel action took place shortly after the protected activity, giving rise to the inference that it was a factor in the adverse action. If the required showing has not been made, the complainant will be so advised and the investigation will not commence.

(c) Notwithstanding a finding that a complainant has made a prima facie showing, as required by this section, an investigation of the complaint will not be conducted if the named person, pursuant to the procedures provided in this paragraph, demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that it would have taken the same unfavorable personnel action in the absence of the complainant's protected behavior or conduct. Within 20 days of receipt of the notice of the filing of the complaint, the named person may submit to the Assistant Secretary a written statement and any affidavits or documents substantiating his or her position. Within the same 20 days the named person may request a meeting with the Assistant Secretary to present his or her position.

(d) If the named person fails to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that it would have taken the same unfavorable personnel action in the absence of the behavior protected by the Act, the Assistant Secretary will conduct an investigation. Investigations will be conducted in a manner that protects the confidentiality of any person who provides information on a confidential basis, other than the complainant, in accordance with 29 CFR part 70.

(e) Prior to the issuance of findings and a preliminary order as provided for in § 1979.105, if the Assistant Secretary has reasonable cause, on the basis of information gathered under the procedures of this part, to believe that the named person has violated the Act and that preliminary reinstatement is warranted, the Assistant Secretary will again contact the named person to give notice of the substance of the relevant evidence supporting the complainant's allegations as developed during the course of the investigation. This evidence includes any witness statements, which will be redacted to protect the identity of confidential informants where statements were given in confidence; if the statements cannot be redacted without revealing the identity of confidential informants, summaries of their contents will be provided. The named person shall be given the opportunity to submit a written response, to meet with the investigators to present statements from witnesses in support of his or her position, and to present legal and factual arguments. The named person shall present this evidence within ten business days of the Assistant Secretary's notification pursuant to this paragraph, or as soon afterwards as the Assistant Secretary and the named person can agree, if the interests of justice so require.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 13 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2011–2026 · leading case: Am. Airlines, Inc. v. Robert Mawhinney, 904 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2018).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Am. Airlines, Inc. v. Robert Mawhinney, 904 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2018). · cites it 3× “§ 42121 (b)(2)(B)(iv); 29 C.F.R. §§ 1979.104 (c), 1979.105(a). DOL advised Mawhinney that he had the right to “appeal” DOL’s investigation by making objections and requesting a hearing before an administrative law judge (“ALJ”).”

Thomas Kuduk v. BNSF Ry. Co., 768 F.3d 786 (8th Cir. 2014). “if the complaint shows that the adverse personnel action took place shortly after the protected activity”) (emphasis added). But we reject the notion — suggested in some ARB decisions — that temporal proximity, without more, is sufficient to establish a prima facie case.”

Hoffman v. Solis, 636 F.3d 262 (6th Cir. 2011). “§ 42121(b)(2)(B)(iii); 29 C.F.R. § 1979.104 (b)(1). The burden of proof then shifts to NetJets, which can satisfy this burden (and thus prevail on Hoffman’s complaint) only if it proves by clear and convincing evidence that it still would have committed the adverse action even…”

Ameristar Airways, Inc. v. Admin. Review Bd., 650 F.3d 562 (5th Cir. 2011). “29 C.F.R. § 1979.104 (b)(2). . Marathon LeTourneau Co.”

Ameristar Airways, Inc. v. Us Dept. of Labor, 650 F.3d 562 (5th Cir. 2011). “[19] 29 C.F.R. § 1979.104 (b)(2). [20] Marathon LeTourneau Co.”

Bombardier, Inc. v. United States Dep't of Labor, 145 F. Supp. 3d 21 (D.D.C. 2015). “§ 42121 (b)(2)(B); 29 C.F.R. § 1979.104 (b)-(d). When an investigation is warranted, OSHA must conclude the investigation and release written findings within the sixty-day period prescribed by statute.”

Mark Estabrook v. Admin. Review Bd. (5th Cir. 2020). · cites it 3× “§ 42121 (b)(2)(B)(i), or “adverse personnel action[s],” 29 C.F.R. § 1979.104 (b)(2)) for those protected activities.”

Shearrer v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co. Inc (N.D. Ala. 2021). · cites it 2× “”); see 29 C.F.R. § 1979.104 (b)(1) (setting out the same elements for an AIR21 retaliation claim as those set out in Araujo for a FRSA retaliation claim).”

Hitt v. CSX Transp., Inc. (N.D. Ala. 2023). · cites it 2× “”); see 29 C.F.R. § 1979.104 (b)(1) (setting out the same elements for an AIR21 retaliation claim as those set out in Araujo for a FRSA retaliation claim).”

Jones v. BNSF Ry. Co. (D. Mont. 2020). “” 29 C.F.R. § 1979.104 (b)(2). As discussed, though, no such inference follows in the present case.”

Nicholas Servs., LLC; & Corr Flight S., Inc. v. United States Dep't of Labor, Lori Chavez-Deremer, in her offic (N.D. Miss. 2026). “29 C.F.R. § 1979.104 . After the Secretary’s investigation, “either the person alleged to have committed the violation or the complainant may file objections to the findings or preliminary order, or both, and request a hearing on the record.”

Vernon Jones v. LABR (7th Cir. 2014). “See 29 C.F.R. § 1979.104 (b). Jones objected to these findings and requested a hearing before an administrative law judge.”

Show all 13 citing cases →

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.