29 C.F.R. § 1982.100

Purpose and scope

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

(a) This part implements procedures of the National Transit Systems Security Act (NTSSA), 6 U.S.C. 1142, and the Federal Railroad Safety Act (FRSA), 49 U.S.C. 20109, as amended. NTSSA provides for employee protection from retaliation because the employee has engaged in protected activity pertaining to public transportation safety or security (or, in circumstances covered by the statute, the employee is perceived to have engaged or to be about to engage in protected activity). FRSA provides for employee protection from retaliation because the employee has engaged in protected activity pertaining to railroad safety or security (or, in circumstances covered by the statute, the employee is perceived to have engaged or to be about to engage in protected activity), has requested medical or first aid treatment, or has followed orders or a treatment plan of a treating physician. It also protects an employee against delay, denial or interference with first aid or medical treatment for a workplace injury.

(b) This part establishes procedures under NTSSA and FRSA for the expeditious handling of retaliation complaints filed by employees, or by persons acting on their behalf, and sets forth the Secretary's interpretations of NTSSA and FRSA on certain statutory issues. These rules, together with those codified at 29 CFR part 18, set forth the procedures under NTSSA or FRSA for submission of complaints, investigations, issuance of findings and preliminary orders, objections to findings and orders, litigation before administrative law judges, post-hearing administrative review, and withdrawals and settlements.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2021–2025 · leading case: Beall v. Tri-Rail (S.D. Fla. 2021).
Beall v. Tri-Rail (S.D. Fla. 2021). “” 29 C.F.R. § 1982.100 (a). “The NTSSA does not, however, create a private cause of action .”
Marbley v. Teamster Local 988 (S.D. Tex. 2023). “Plaintiff's National Transit System Security Act Claim Defendants argue that Plaintiff's National Transit System Security Act Claim (NTSSA) must be dismissed because Plaintiff has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and this Court thus lacks subject matter jurisdiction…”
Ghusain v. Webb (N.D. Cal. 2025). “” 29 C.F.R. § 1982.100 . 7 The administrative complaint named as a respondent Mr.”
— 29 C.F.R. § 1982.100(a) — 1 case
Marbley v. Teamster Local 988 (S.D. Tex. 2023). “Plaintiff's National Transit System Security Act Claim Defendants argue that Plaintiff's National Transit System Security Act Claim (NTSSA) must be dismissed because Plaintiff has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and this Court thus lacks subject matter jurisdiction…”
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.