U.S. Code » Title 15 » Chapter CHAPTER 53— TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER I— CONTROL OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES

15 U.S.C. § 2622

Employee protection

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 15 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) In generalNo employer may discharge any employee or otherwise discriminate against any employee with respect to the employee’s compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because the employee (or any person acting pursuant to a request of the employee) has—(1) commenced, caused to be commenced, or is about to commence or cause to be commenced a proceeding under this chapter;(2) testified or is about to testify in any such proceeding; or(3) assisted or participated or is about to assist or participate in any manner in such a proceeding or in any other action to carry out the purposes of this chapter.(b) Remedy(1) Any employee who believes that the employee has been discharged or otherwise discriminated against by any person in violation of subsection (a) of this section may, within 30 days after such alleged violation occurs, file (or have any person file on the employee’s behalf) a complaint with the Secretary of Labor (hereinafter in this section referred to as the “Secretary”) alleging such discharge or discrimination. Upon receipt of such a complaint, the Secretary shall notify the person named in the complaint of the filing of the complaint.(2)(A) Upon receipt of a complaint filed under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall conduct an investigation of the violation alleged in the complaint. Within 30 days of the receipt of such complaint, the Secretary shall complete such investigation and shall notify in writing the complainant (and any person acting on behalf of the complainant) and the person alleged to have committed such violation of the results of the investigation conducted pursuant to this paragraph. Within ninety days of the receipt of such complaint the Secretary shall, unless the proceeding on the complaint is terminated by the Secretary on the basis of a settlement entered into by the Secretary and the person alleged to have committed such violation, issue an order either providing the relief prescribed by subparagraph (B) or denying the complaint. An order of the Secretary shall be made on the record after notice and opportunity for agency hearing. The Secretary may not enter into a settlement terminating a proceeding on a complaint without the participation and consent of the complainant.(B) If in response to a complaint filed under paragraph (1) the Secretary determines that a violation of subsection (a) of this section has occurred, the Secretary shall order (i) the person who committed such violation to take affirmative action to abate the violation, (ii) such person to reinstate the complainant to the complainant’s former position together with the compensation (including back pay), terms, conditions, and privileges of the complainant’s employment, (iii) compensatory damages, and (iv) where appropriate, exemplary damages. If such an order issued, the Secretary, at the request of the complainant, shall assess against the person against whom the order is issued a sum equal to the aggregate amount of all costs and expenses (including attorney’s fees) reasonably incurred, as determined by the Secretary, by the complainant for, or in connection with, the bringing of the complaint upon which the order was issued.(c) Review(1) Any employee or employer adversely affected or aggrieved by an order issued under subsection (b) may obtain review of the order in the United States Court of Appeals for the circuit in which the violation, with respect to which the order was issued, allegedly occurred. The petition for review must be filed within sixty days from the issuance of the Secretary’s order. Review shall conform to chapter 7 of title 5.(2) An order of the Secretary, with respect to which review could have been obtained under paragraph (1), shall not be subject to judicial review in any criminal or other civil proceeding.(d) Enforcement

Whenever a person has failed to comply with an order issued under subsection (b)(2), the Secretary shall file a civil action in the United States district court for the district in which the violation was found to occur to enforce such order. In actions brought under this subsection, the district courts shall have jurisdiction to grant all appropriate relief, including injunctive relief and compensatory and exemplary damages.

(e) Exclusion

Subsection (a) of this section shall not apply with respect to any employee who, acting without direction from the employee’s employer (or any agent of the employer), deliberately causes a violation of any requirement of this chapter.

(Pub. L. 94–469, title I, § 23, Oct. 11, 1976, 90 Stat. 2044; Pub. L. 98–620, title IV, § 402(19), Nov. 8, 1984, 98 Stat. 3358; renumbered title I, Pub. L. 99–519, § 3(c)(1), Oct. 22, 1986, 100 Stat. 2989.)Editorial NotesAmendments

1984—Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 98–620 struck out provision that civil actions brought under this subsection had to be heard and decided expeditiously.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1984 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 98–620 not applicable to cases pending on Nov. 8, 1984, see section 403 of Pub. L. 98–620, set out as an Effective Date note under section 1657 of Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure.

Effective Date

Section effective Jan. 1, 1977, see section 31 of Pub. L. 94–469, set out as a note under section 2601 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 61 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1981–2021 · leading case: Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83 (1998).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83 (1998). · cites it 2× “a civil penalty in the amount of not more than the higher of $100,000 or triple the monetary gain to the person for each violation"); 15 U. S. C. § 2622 (d) ("In actions brought under this subsection, the district courts shall have jurisdiction to grant all appropriate relief,…”
Anderson v. United States Dep't of Labor, 422 F.3d 1155 (10th Cir. 2005). · cites it 4× “) Additionally, he awarded Anderson $150,000 in compensatory damages, $150,000 in punitive damages (pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 2622 (b)(2)(B)(iv) (TSCA) and 42 U.”
Gary Vander Boegh v. EnergySolutions, Inc., 772 F.3d 1056 (6th Cir. 2014). · cites it 4× “§ 1367 ; Toxic Substances Control Act (“TSCA”), 15 U.S.C. § 2622 ; and Solid Waste Disposal Act (“SWDA”), 42 U.”
Fed. Mar. Comm'n v. South Carolina State Ports Auth., 535 U.S. 743 (2002). · cites it 2× “§ 1367 (Clean Water Act); 15 U. S. C. § 2622 (Toxic Substances Control Act); 42 U.”
William Castle v. Eurofresh, Inc., 731 F.3d 901 (9th Cir. 2013). · cites it 4× “15 U.S.C. § 2622 (a) (Toxic Substances Control Act); 42 U.”
Sch. Dist. of the City of Allentown v. Ray Marshall, Sec'y of Labor, U. S. Dep't of Labor & Edward Hanna, 657 F.2d 16 (3rd Cir. 1981). · cites it 3× “Nevertheless, in these circumstances, the failure to file a complaint within the prescribed thirty days requires a decision in favor of the School District.”
Winters v. Houston Chronicle Publ'g Co., 795 S.W.2d 723 (Tex. 1990). · cites it 2× “§ 1790b(a) (West 1989); Toxic Substances Control Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2622 (a) (1988); National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.”
Douglas COUPAR, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES Dep't OF LABOR; Fed. Prison Indus. (UNICOR), Respondents, 105 F.3d 1263 (9th Cir. 1997). · cites it 6× “§ 7622 , and the Toxic Substances Control Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2622 , (“the Acts”). The Secretary of Labor dismissed Coupar’s claim because he concluded that Coupar is not an “employee” within the meaning of the Acts.”
Bobreski v. U.S. Env't Prot. Agency, 284 F. Supp. 2d 67 (D.D.C. 2003). · cites it 3× “§ 9610 ; and the Toxic Substances Control Act (“TSCA”), 15 U.S.C. § 2622 . 1 Id. at 3-4 . In March 2001, after conducting an investigation, the Department’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) determined that the plaintiffs termination violated all six…”
Ohio Env't Prot. Agency v. United States Dep't of Labor, 121 F. Supp. 2d 1155 (S.D. Ohio 2000). · cites it 5× “While a number of various federal and state agencies were also involved in the site investigation, Jayco was initially designated to coordinate a review of the site and to insure compliance with no fewer than seven federal environmental statutes, including the Toxic Substances…”
Hugh Kaufman v. Thomas Perez, 745 F.3d 521 (D.C. Cir. 2014). · cites it 2× “§ 9610 ; the Toxic Substances Control Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2622 ; and the Energy Reorganization Act, 42 U.”
Donald J. Willy, & George A. Young v. The Coastal Corp., Coastal States Mgmt. Co., Inc., Defendants, 855 F.2d 1160 (5th Cir. 1988). “§ 300j-9(i); and the Toxic Substances Control Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2622 . The Department of Labor investigated and agreed.”
Show all 61 citing cases →
— 15 U.S.C. § 2622(a) — 1 case
Whether a Fed. Prisoner Worker is an \Emp.\" Within the Meaning of Certain Fed. Statutes" (OLC 1988).
— 15 U.S.C. § 2622(d) — 1 case
Whether a Fed. Prisoner Worker is an \Emp.\" Within the Meaning of Certain Fed. Statutes" (OLC 1988).
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.