(a) Any party who desires review, including judicial review, of the findings and preliminary order, or a respondent alleging that the complaint was frivolous or brought in bad faith who seeks an award of attorney fees under the Act, must file any objections and/or a request for a hearing on the record within 30 days of receipt of the findings and preliminary order pursuant to § 1980.105(b). The objections and/or request for a hearing must be in writing and state whether the objections are to the findings and/or the preliminary order, and/or whether there should be an award of attorney fees. The date of the postmark, facsimile transmittal, or electronic transmittal is considered the date of filing; if the objection is filed in person, by hand-delivery or other means, the objection is filed upon receipt. Objections must be filed with the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. Department of Labor, in accordance with 29 CFR part 18, and copies of the objections must be served at the same time on the other parties of record, the OSHA official who issued the findings and order, the Assistant Secretary, and the Associate Solicitor, Division of Fair Labor Standards, U.S. Department of Labor.
(b) If a timely objection is filed, all provisions of the preliminary order will be stayed, except for the portion requiring preliminary reinstatement, which will not be automatically stayed. The portion of the preliminary order requiring reinstatement will be effective immediately upon the respondent's receipt of the findings and preliminary order, regardless of any objections to the order. The respondent may file a motion with the Office of Administrative Law Judges for a stay of the Assistant Secretary's preliminary order of reinstatement, which shall be granted only based on exceptional circumstances. If no timely objection is filed with respect to either the findings or the preliminary order, the findings and/or preliminary order will become the final decision of the Secretary, not subject to judicial review.
[80 FR 11880, Mar. 5, 2015, as amended at 86 FR 1789, Jan. 11, 2021]
Notes of Decisions
Hanna v. WCI Communities, Inc., 348 F. Supp. 2d 1322 (S.D. Fla. 2004).
· cites it 4× “Then, according to 29 C.F.R. § 1980.106 (a), “[a]ny party who desires review, including judicial review, of the findings and preliminary order .”
Lindsey Gulden v. Exxon Mobil Corp, 119 F.4th 299 (3rd Cir. 2024).
· cites it 2× “§ 42121(b)(2)(A); 29 C.F.R. § 1980.106 (b). If a party objects to a preliminary order, an administrative law judge (“ALJ”) will hold a hearing, make factual findings, and issue a decision.”
Welch v. Chao, 536 F.3d 269 (4th Cir. 2008).
“See 29 C.F.R. § 1980.106 (2007). Following the hearing, the ALJ issued a recommended decision and order, finding that at least three of the concerns that Welch communicated to Cardinal constituted protected activity under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.”
Stone v. Instrumentation Lab'y Co., 591 F.3d 239 (4th Cir. 2009).
“29 C.F.R. § 1980.106 (a). The ALJ’s decision on such a challenge “will contain appropriate findings, conclusions, and an order .”
Villanueva v. United States Dep't of Labor, 743 F.3d 103 (5th Cir. 2014).
“§ 42121 (b)(2)(A); ' 29 C.F.R. § 1980.106 . The ALJ’s decision is subject to discretionary review by the Board, which issues the final order of the Secretary: See 29 C.”
Lawson v. FMR LLC, 724 F. Supp. 2d 141 (D. Mass. 2010).
“29 C.F.R. § 1980.106 (b)(2). If the ARB has accepted the case for review, then its determination on the merits of the case, once made, is the final decision of the Department^ 1980.”
Deltek, Inc. v. Dep't of Labor, Admin. Review Bd., 649 F. App'x 320 (4th Cir. 2016).
· cites it 2× “See 29 C.F.R. § 1980.106 (2010). Following a twelve-day hearing on liability, the ALJ, after dismissing all individual Deltek employees from the case, issued a lengthy decision and order finding that Deltek had retaliated against Gunther in violation of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.”
Mozingo v. South Fin. Grp., Inc., 520 F. Supp. 2d 733 (D.S.C. 2007).
“” 29 C.F.R. § 1980.106 (b)(2). An ALJ conducts the hearing, and the “decision of the administrative law judge will contain appropriate findings, conclusions, and an order pertaining to the remedies provided in paragraph (b) of this section, as appropriate.”
Welch v. Cardinal Bankshares Corp., 454 F. Supp. 2d 552 (W.D. Va. 2006).
“The precise procedures for appeal of orders by OSHA are set forth in 29 C.F.R. § 1980.106 et seq. The fact that the order issued by the ALJ is not discussed in the statute does not impact the court's conclusion, however, as the enforcement provisions in paragraphs (5) and (6)…”
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.