(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 NTSSA, 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 § 1982.105. The objections, request for a hearing, and/or request for attorney fees must be in writing and state whether the objections are to the findings, 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 and/or the preliminary order, the findings or preliminary order will become the final decision of the Secretary, not subject to judicial review.
[80 FR 69132, Nov. 9, 2015, as amended at 86 FR 1790, Jan. 11, 2021]
Notes of Decisions
Sparre v. U.S. Dep't of Labor, 924 F.3d 398 (7th Cir. 2019).
· cites it 2× “1 Specifically, the ALJ held that Sparre presented no evidence showing Sparre's protected activity (reporting the safety violation in 2010) was a contributing factor in Norfolk's decision to fire him, or that there was any "temporal proximity" between the two events.”
Dakota, MN & E. R.R. v. U.S. Dep't of Labor, 948 F.3d 940 (8th Cir. 2020).
“See 29 C.F.R. § 1982.106 . At the evidentiary hearing, Riley introduced no evidence that the CP decision makers, or any other supervisor, intentionally discriminated against Riley because he engaged in the protected activity of filing an injury or unsafe condition report.”
Norfolk S. Ry. Co. v. Solis, 915 F. Supp. 2d 32 (D.C. Cir. 2013).
“§ 42121 (b)(2)(A); 29 C.F.R. § 1982.106 (a). A preliminary order of reinstatement issued on behalf of the Assistant Secretary remains in effect unless specifically stayed.”
Gunderson v. BNSF Ry. Co., 29 F. Supp. 3d 1259 (D. Minnesota 2014).
“29 C.F.R. § 1982.106 . An administrative law judge (“ALJ”) then conducts a hearing and issues findings of fact and conclusions of law.”
John Sparre v. LABR (7th Cir. 2019).
· cites it 2× “§ 42121 (b)(2)(A)); 29 C.F.R. § 1982.106 (a). The parties engaged in years‐long, extensive discovery.”
Norfolk S. Ry. Co. v. Solis (D.D.C. 2013).
“§ 42121 (b)(2)(A); 29 C.F.R. § 1982.106 (a). A preliminary order of reinstatement issued on behalf of the Assistant Secretary remains in effect unless specifically stayed.”
— 29 C.F.R. § 1982.106(a) — 2 cases
Sparre v. U.S. Dep't of Labor, 924 F.3d 398 (7th Cir. 2019).
“1 Specifically, the ALJ held that Sparre presented no evidence showing Sparre's protected activity (reporting the safety violation in 2010) was a contributing factor in Norfolk's decision to fire him, or that there was any "temporal proximity" between the two events.”
John Sparre v. LABR (7th Cir. 2019).
“§ 42121 (b)(2)(A)); 29 C.F.R. § 1982.106 (a). The parties engaged in years‐long, extensive discovery.”
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.