29 C.F.R. § 1982.114

District court jurisdiction of retaliation complaints

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

(a) If there is no final order of the Secretary, 210 days have passed since 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. At the request of either party, the action shall be tried by the court with a jury.

(b) A proceeding under paragraph (a) of this section shall be governed by the same legal burdens of proof specified in § 1982.109. An employee prevailing in a proceeding under paragraph (a) shall be entitled to all relief necessary to make the employee whole, including, where appropriate: Reinstatement with the same seniority status that the employee would have had, but for the retaliation; any back pay with interest; and payment of compensatory damages, including compensation for any special damages sustained as a result of the retaliation, including litigation costs, expert witness fees, and reasonable attorney fees. The court may also order punitive damages in an amount not to exceed $250,000.

(c) Within 7 days after filing a complaint in federal court, a complainant must file with the Assistant Secretary, the ALJ, or the ARB, depending upon where the proceeding is pending, a copy of the file-stamped complaint. In all cases, a copy of the complaint must also 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

Cited in 8 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2014–2023 · leading case: Paul Gunderson v. BNSF Ry. Co., 850 F.3d 962 (8th Cir. 2017).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Paul Gunderson v. BNSF Ry. Co., 850 F.3d 962 (8th Cir. 2017). · cites it 2× “” 29 C.F.R. § 1982.114 (a). II. This Lawsuit.”

John Guerra, Jr. v. Consol. Rail Corp, 936 F.3d 124 (3rd Cir. 2019). “4; 29 C.F.R. § 1982.114 (c). In any event, after the District Court issued its decision, the ARB dismissed Guerra’s case for lack of 7 dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1), asserting that Guerra’s failure to file a timely complaint with OSHA…”

Charles Lee v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 802 F.3d 626 (4th Cir. 2015). “; 29 C.F.R. § 1982.114 (a), (b). 2 . Specifically, the FRSA now incorporates by reference the rules and procedures applicable to whistleblower cases brought under the Wendell H.”

Gunderson v. BNSF Ry. Co., 29 F. Supp. 3d 1259 (D. Minnesota 2014). · cites it 2× “” 29 C.F.R. § 1982.114 (b) (emphasis added).”

Soo Line R.R. Co. v. Admin. Rev. Bd US Labor Dept., 990 F.3d 596 (8th Cir. 2021). · cites it 2× “§ 20109 (d)(3) and 29 C.F.R. § 1982.114 (a)—both of which grant a federal district court jurisdiction to review an employee’s claim(s) de novo if, like here, the Secretary of Labor does not issue a “final” decision within 210 days of the complaint’s filing date.”

Dohogne v. Terminal R.R. Ass'n (S.D. Ill. 2022). · cites it 2× “See 29 C.F.R. § 1982.114 (a). An ALJ’s decision is only considered a final order of the Secretary if there is no timely petition for review before the ARB.”

Dimauro v. Springfield Terminal Ry. Co., 187 F. Supp. 3d 205 (D. Me. 2016). “29 C.F.R, § 1982.114 (2015); see also 75 Fed.”

Gift v. Mexico Foods LLC (N.D. Tex. 2023). “Motion to Strike The second “ripe” motion in this case is Gift’s motion to strike portions of Mexico Foods’ reply.”

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.