29 C.F.R. § 24.114

District court jurisdiction of retaliation complaints under the Energy Reorganization Act

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

(a) If there is no final order of the Secretary, one year has passed since the filing of a complaint under the Energy Reorganization Act, 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.

(b) Fifteen days in advance of 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 notice of his or her intention to file such complaint. The notice must be served on all parties to the proceeding. A copy of the notice must be served on the Regional Administrator, the Assistant Secretary, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and on the Associate Solicitor, Division of Fair Labor Standards, U.S. Department of Labor. The complainant shall file and serve a copy of the district court complaint on the above as soon as possible after the district court complaint has been filed with the court.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2014–2025 · leading case: Gary Vander Boegh v. EnergySolutions, Inc., 772 F.3d 1056 (6th Cir. 2014).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Gary Vander Boegh v. EnergySolutions, Inc., 772 F.3d 1056 (6th Cir. 2014). · cites it 2× “§ 5851 (b)(4); 29 C.F.R. § 24.114 . Rather, they require a claimant to fully exhaust his administrative remedies before seeking judicial review in the courts of appeals.”

Wilson v. Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (D. Mass. 2019). “Wilson notified OSHA that he intended to file an action for de novo review pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 24.114 because more than one year had passed since he had filed his administrative complaint and the Secretary of Labor had not yet issued a final order.”

Trivelli v. Putnam Hosp. Ctr. (S.D.N.Y. 2020). “On October 1, 2019, Plaintiff notified OSHA that he intended to file an action in this Court pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 24.114 and served notice on HQSI.”

Borris v. U.S. Dep't of Energy (S.D. Ohio 2025). “29 C.F.R. § 24.114 (detailing a district court’s jurisdiction over ERA retaliation claims).”

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.