29 C.F.R. § 1980.103

Filing of retaliation complaints

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

(a) Who may file. An employee who believes that he or she has been retaliated against by a covered person in violation of the Act may file, or have filed on the employee's behalf, a complaint alleging such retaliation.

(b) Nature of filing. No particular form of complaint is required. A complaint may be filed orally or in writing. Oral complaints will be reduced to writing by OSHA. If the complainant is unable to file the complaint in English, OSHA will accept the complaint in any language.

(c) Place of filing. The complaint should be filed with the OSHA office 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 180 days after an alleged violation of the Act occurs or after the date on which the employee became aware of the alleged violation of the Act, any employee who believes that he or she has been retaliated against in violation of the Act may file, or have filed on the employee's behalf, a complaint alleging such retaliation. The date of the postmark, facsimile transmittal, electronic communication transmittal, telephone call, hand-delivery, delivery to a third-party commercial carrier, or in-person filing at an OSHA office will be considered the date of filing. The time for filing a complaint may be tolled for reasons warranted by applicable case law. For example, OSHA may consider the time for filing a complaint equitably tolled if a complainant mistakenly files a complaint with the another agency instead of OSHA within 180 days after becoming aware of the alleged violation.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 42 cases (11 in the last 5 years), 2003–2025 · leading case: Daly v. Citigroup Inc.

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Daly v. Citigroup Inc. (2019) ca2 · cites it 2× “See 29 C.F.R. § 1980.103 (b)‐ (d). By the terms of the statute and its attendant regulations, then, a party may seek review of a SOX whistleblower claim in federal court under two circumstances: First, when OSHA fails to issue a final decision within 180 days of the filing of an…”

Newman v. Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (2018) ca1 · cites it 2× “5 If after 180 days the Department of Labor has not issued a final decision on an administrative complaint, the plaintiff may file an action in federal court. 18 U.S.C. § 1514A(b)(2)(D).”

Coppinger-Martin v. Solis (2010) ca9 · cites it 3× “A plaintiff seeking whistleblower protection under SOX must first file an administrative complaint with OSHA, see 29 C.F.R. § 1980.103 (c), “not later than 90 days after the date on which the violation occurs,” 18 U.”

Collins v. Beazer Homes USA, Inc. (2004) gand · cites it 2× “§ 1514A(b)(2)(D); see 29 C.F.R. § 1980.103 . 5 The Regulations governing OSHA’s handling of discrimination complaints under Sarbanes-Oxley provide for an investigation, a hearing before an administrative law judge, a review by an administrative review board, and an appeal to the…”

Feldman v. Law Enforcement Associates Corp. (2014) ca4 “See § 1514A(b)(l)(A); 29 C.F.R. § 1980.103 . If the Secretary has not issued a final decision within 180 days of the filing of the complaint, and there is no showing that the delay is due to any bad faith by the plaintiff, the plaintiff may file suit in federal district court,…”

Andrea Jones v. Southpeak Interactive Corporation (2015) ca4 “” 29 C.F.R. § 1980.103 (b) (2009). Appellee satisfied her burden, and OSHA’s subsequent treatment of the complaint cannot take away her opportunity to seek recourse.”

Bozeman v. Per-Se Technologies, Inc. (2006) gand · cites it 2× “, § 1514A(b)(2)(D); 29 C.F.R. § 1980.103 (b, d). If the employee meets these requirements for a particular violation, and a final administrative decision has not issued within 180 days of the filing, the employee is authorized to proceed with an action in federal court based on…”

Wong v. CKX, Inc. (2012) nysd · cites it 2× “29 C.F.R. § 1980.103 (c) (1998); see 18 U.”

Day v. Staples, Inc. (2009) ca1 “22, 2002); see 29 C.F.R. § 1980.103 (c). 5 . If the Secretary of Labor has not issued a final decision within 180 days of the filing of the complaint and there is no showing that such delay is due to the bad faith of the claimant, the claimant may file suit for de novo review in…”

Apostolos Xanthopoulos v. LABR (2021) ca7 “3 See 29 C.F.R. § 1980.103 (b)–(d) (2015) (allowing complaints in writing including through electronic transmittal).”

JDS Uniphase Corp. v. Jennings (2007) vaed “29 C.F.R. § 1980.103 (d). Next, a claimant must allow the agency at least 180 days to investigate and issue a decision on the merits.”

Rzepiennik v. Archstone Smith, Inc. (2009) ca10 · cites it 3× “Rzepiennik’s complaint refers to Arch-stone’s August 20, 2003, letter offering to pay him a bonus, conditioned on 1) his promise not to disclose the underlying facts concerning the alleged fraud, and 2) his delivery to Arehstone of all documents and copies in his possession…”

Show all 42 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.