C.F.R. » Title 29 » CHAPTER XVII—OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR › PART 1982—PROCEDURES FOR THE HANDLING OF RETALIATION COMPLAINTS UNDER THE NATIONAL TRANSIT SYSTEMS SECURITY ACT AND THE FEDERAL RAILROAD SAFETY ACT › Subpart A—Complaints, Investigations, Findings and Preliminary Orders

29 C.F.R. § 1982.103

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 in violation of NTSSA or FRSA may file, or have filed by any person 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 NTSSA or FRSA occurs, any employee who believes that he or she has been retaliated against in violation of NTSSA or FRSA may file, or have filed by any person 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 another agency instead of OSHA within 180 days after becoming aware of the alleged violation.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2014–2025 · leading case: Rita Foster v. BNSF Ry. Co., 866 F.3d 962 (8th Cir. 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Rita Foster v. BNSF Ry. Co., 866 F.3d 962 (8th Cir. 2017). · cites it 3× “§' 20109(d)(1); 29 C.F.R. § 1982.103 . After OSHA did not issue a final decision within the 210-day statutory period, the plaintiffs filed this suit in federal court as permitted by law.”
Brisbois v. Soo Line R.R., 124 F. Supp. 3d 891 (D. Minnesota 2015). · cites it 4× “CP insists, though, that Brisbois’s phone call does not qualify as a filed complaint because OSHA mistakenly told her that her complaint was untimely, mistakenly believed that she no longer wanted to pursue the complaint, and mistakenly failed to reduce Brisbois’s complaint to…”
Sparre v. U.S. Dep't of Labor, 924 F.3d 398 (7th Cir. 2019). “20109(d)(2)(A)(ii) ; 29 C.F.R. 1982.103(d). The Secretary delegates responsibility for investigating retaliation claims to OSHA, and either party may file objections to OSHA's determination within 30 days and request a hearing on the record before an ALJ.”
Fulk v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 35 F. Supp. 3d 749 (M.D.N.C. 2014). · cites it 2× “” 29 C.F.R. § 1982.103 (a). The primary point of contention between the parties is the interpretation of 49 U.”
John Sparre v. LABR (7th Cir. 2019). “The Secretary dele‐ gates responsibility for investigating retaliation claims to OSHA, and either party may file objections to OSHA’s deter‐ mination within 30 days and request a hearing on the record before an ALJ. 49 U.”
McCrae v. H.N.S. Mgmt. Co. (D. Conn. 2024). “§ 1142 (e) (de novo review); 29 C.F.R. § 1982.103 (Filing of retaliation complaints).”
Gasiorowski-Watts v. CSX Transp. Inc. (N.D. Ohio 2023). “§ 20109 (d)(1), 29 C.F.R. § 1982.103 . After the agency conducts an investigation, and issues findings and a preliminary order, either party may file objections and request a hearing with an administrative law judge (ALJ).”
Pfeifle v. Portland Terminal R.R. Co. (D. Or. 2021). “” 29 C.F.R. § 1982.103 (a)-(b) (FRSA). Indeed, a “complaint may be filed orally or in writing.”
Ghusain v. Webb (N.D. Cal. 2025). “” 29 C.F.R. § 1982.103 (b). “A complaint may be 22 filed orally or in writing” and if oral, the complaint “will be reduced to writing by OSHA.”
— 29 C.F.R. § 1982.103(d) — 2 cases
Sparre v. U.S. Dep't of Labor, 924 F.3d 398 (7th Cir. 2019). “20109(d)(2)(A)(ii) ; 29 C.F.R. 1982.103(d). The Secretary delegates responsibility for investigating retaliation claims to OSHA, and either party may file objections to OSHA's determination within 30 days and request a hearing on the record before an ALJ.”
John Sparre v. LABR (7th Cir. 2019). “The Secretary dele‐ gates responsibility for investigating retaliation claims to OSHA, and either party may file objections to OSHA’s deter‐ mination within 30 days and request a hearing on the record before an ALJ. 49 U.”
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.