(a) If the Secretary has not issued a final decision within 180 days of the filing of the complaint, and there is no showing that there has been delay due to the bad faith of the complainant, the complainant may bring an action at law or equity for de novo review in the appropriate district court of the United States, which will have jurisdiction over such an action without regard to the amount in controversy. A party to an action brought under this paragraph shall be entitled to trial by jury.
(b) A proceeding under paragraph (a) of this section shall be governed by the same legal burdens of proof specified in § 1980.109. An employee prevailing in any action under paragraph (a) of this section shall be entitled to all relief necessary to make the employee whole, including:
(1) Reinstatement with the same seniority status that the employee would have had, but for the retaliation;
(2) The amount of back pay, with interest;
(3) Compensation for any special damages sustained as a result of the retaliation; and
(4) Litigation costs, expert witness fees, and reasonable attorney fees.
(c) Within seven days after filing a complaint in federal court, a complainant must file with OSHA, the ALJ, or the ARB, depending on where the proceeding is pending, a copy of the file-stamped complaint. A copy of the complaint also must be served on the OSHA official who issued the findings and/or preliminary order, the Assistant Secretary, and the Associate Solicitor, Division of Fair Labor Standards, U.S. Department of Labor.
Notes of Decisions
Hanna v. WCI Communities, Inc., 348 F. Supp. 2d 1322 (S.D. Fla. 2004).
· cites it 3× “See 29 C.F.R.1980.114. Thirteen days later, on June 28, 2004, the DOL issued its preliminary findings indicating that there was no reasonable cause to believe that WCI was guilty of violating the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.”
Stone v. Instrumentation Lab'y Co., 591 F.3d 239 (4th Cir. 2009).
· cites it 2× “” 29 CFR § 1980.114 (b). The notice must be provided fifteen days in advance of filing the federal suit, and should be filed with “the [ALJ] or the [ARB], depending on where the proceeding is pending.”
Nielsen v. AECOM Tech. Corp., 762 F.3d 214 (2d Cir. 2014).
“; 29 C.F.R. § 1980.114 . The ARB closed Nielsen’s administrative case after receiving notice of his federal lawsuit.”
JDS Uniphase Corp. v. Jennings, 473 F. Supp. 2d 705 (E.D. Va. 2007).
· cites it 2× “§ 1514A(b)(1)(B); 29 C.F.R. § 1980.114 (a). This much is uncontroversial; but the exhaustion analysis does not end here.”
Collins v. Beazer Homes USA, Inc., 334 F. Supp. 2d 1365 (N.D. Ga. 2004).
· cites it 2× “29 C.F.R. § 1980.114 (b). 7 . Defendants suggest that Plaintiff is not a covered "employee” as defined in Sarbanes-Oxley.”
Andrea Jones v. Southpeak Interactive Corp., 777 F.3d 658 (4th Cir. 2015).
“More than 180 days passed without a final order from OSHA; consequently, on July 23, 2010, Appellee sent OSHA a letter explaining that she was electing to file a federal lawsuit pursuant to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and 29 C.F.R. § 1980.114 (b). See 18 U.S.C. § 1514A(b)(l)(B)…”
Lenart v. Coach, Inc., 131 F. Supp. 3d 61 (S.D.N.Y. 2015).
“at 7-8 (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 1980.114 ); PI. Reply Mem. Further Supp.”
Wong v. CKX, Inc., 890 F. Supp. 2d 411 (S.D.N.Y. 2012).
“) The matter remained pending before the ALJ until July 19, 2011, when Wong notified the ALJ that pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1980.114 she *417 intended to terminate the proceedings with the ALJ and “file an action for de novo review in the appropriate District Court of the United…”
Christopher Garvey v. Admin. Review Bd., 56 F.4th 110 (D.C. Cir. 2022).
“§ 1514A(b)(1)(B); see also 29 C.F.R. § 1980.114 . 8 The Secretary’s adjudication of SOX whistleblower claims is governed by the rules, procedures, and burdens of proof set forth in the Wendell H.”
Mozingo v. South Fin. Grp., Inc., 520 F. Supp. 2d 733 (D.S.C. 2007).
· cites it 2× “) On January 3, 2007, “180 days after filing his complaint, and after the Secretary of Labor failed to issue a final decision, Plaintiff filed and served a ‘Notice of Intent to File a Complaint,’ pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1980.114 .” (Compl.1l 49.) On January 26, 2007, Plaintiff…”
O'MAHONY v. Accenture Ltd., 537 F. Supp. 2d 506 (S.D.N.Y. 2008).
“On August 15, 2007, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1980.114 , O’Mahony notified the ARB that she intended to file an action for de novo review in the appropriate United States District Court because the ARB did not issue a final decision within 180 days of the date the DOL Complaint…”
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.