C.F.R. » Title 29 » CHAPTER XVII—OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR › PART 1980—PROCEDURES FOR THE HANDLING OF RETALIATION COMPLAINTS UNDER SECTION 806 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, AS AMENDED › Subpart C—Miscellaneous Provisions

29 C.F.R. § 1980.112

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 complainant 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.

[80 FR 11880, Mar. 5, 2015, as amended at 85 FR 30622, May 20, 2020]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2006–2025 · leading case: Tice v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 515 F. Supp. 2d 580 (W.D. Pa. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Tice v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 515 F. Supp. 2d 580 (W.D. Pa. 2007). · cites it 4× “§ 42121 (b)(4), which provides a limitation on collateral attack); 29 C.F.R. § 1980.112 (a). Here, the decision of the administrative law judge became the final order of the Secretary of Labor and review of that order by a court of appeals could have been obtained.”
Allen v. Admin. Review Bd., 514 F.3d 468 (5th Cir. 2008). “§ 42121 (b)(4)(A); 29 C.F.R. § 1980.112 (a). Under that standard, the decision of the ARB will be upheld unless it is "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise contrary to law.”
Northrop Grumman Sys. Corp. v. US Dep't of Labor, 927 F.3d 226 (4th Cir. 2019). “§ 1514A(b)(2), and 29 C.F.R. § 1980.112 (a). 5 II. A. Before examining the merits of Northrop's appeal, we first discuss the applicable standard of review.”
John Scott Bechtel, United States Dep't of Labor, Intervenor-Plaintiff-Appellee v. Competitive Tech., Inc., Docket No. 05-2404-Cv, 448 F.3d 469 (2d Cir. 2006). “29 C.F.R. § 1980.112 (a). The regulation seems to interpret paragraph (4) of AIR21(b), which provides for review of “an order issued under paragraph (3),” to apply only to review of a final agency order; the regulations contain no provision for immediate review of a preliminary…”
Mozingo v. South Fin. Grp., Inc., 520 F. Supp. 2d 733 (D.S.C. 2007). “29 C.F.R. § 1980.112 (a). The statute’s wording is similar: Any person adversely affected or aggrieved by an order issued under paragraph (3) may obtain review of the order in the United States Court of Appeals for the circuit in which the violation, with respect to which the…”
Stuker v. United States Dep't of Labor (W.D. Wash. 2025). “29 C.F.R. § 1980.112 (a)-(b). Stuker already attempted to do just that, and the 12 Ninth Circuit transferred her case here.”
Getman v. Admin. Review Bd., 265 F. App'x 317 (5th Cir. 2008). “§ 42121 (b)(4)(A); 29 C.F.R. § 1980.112 (a)); see also Macktal v.”
Allen v. Admin. Review Bd., 514 F.3d 456 (5th Cir. 2008). “§ 42121 (b)(4)(A); 29 C.F.R. § 1980.112 (a). Under that standard, the decision of the ARB will be upheld unless it is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise contrary to law.”
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.