29 U.S.C. § 218c

Protections for employees

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 29 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) ProhibitionNo employer shall discharge or in any manner discriminate against any employee with respect to his or her compensation, terms, conditions, or other privileges of employment because the employee (or an individual acting at the request of the employee) has—(1) received a credit under section 36B of title 26 or a subsidy under section 18071 of title 42; 11 See References in Text note below.(2) provided, caused to be provided, or is about to provide or cause to be provided to the employer, the Federal Government, or the attorney general of a State information relating to any violation of, or any act or omission the employee reasonably believes to be a violation of, any provision of this title ¹ (or an amendment made by this title); ¹(3) testified or is about to testify in a proceeding concerning such violation;(4) assisted or participated, or is about to assist or participate, in such a proceeding; or(5) objected to, or refused to participate in, any activity, policy, practice, or assigned task that the employee (or other such person) reasonably believed to be in violation of any provision of this title ¹ (or amendment), or any order, rule, regulation, standard, or ban under this title ¹ (or amendment).(b) Complaint procedure(1) In general

An employee who believes that he or she has been discharged or otherwise discriminated against by any employer in violation of this section may seek relief in accordance with the procedures, notifications, burdens of proof, remedies, and statutes of limitation set forth in section 2087(b) of title 15.

(2) No limitation on rights

Nothing in this section shall be deemed to diminish the rights, privileges, or remedies of any employee under any Federal or State law or under any collective bargaining agreement. The rights and remedies in this section may not be waived by any agreement, policy, form, or condition of employment.

(June 25, 1938, ch. 676, § 18C, as added Pub. L. 111–148, title I, § 1558, Mar. 23, 2010, 124 Stat. 261.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

Section 18071 of title 42, referred to in subsec. (a)(1), was in the original “section 1402 of this Act”, and was translated as meaning section 1402 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which is classified to section 18071 of title 42, to reflect the probable intent of Congress.

This title, referred to in subsec. (a)(2), (5), probably means title I of Pub. L. 111–148, Mar. 23, 2011, 124 Stat. 130. For complete classification of title I to the Code, see Tables.

Section 2087(b) of title 15, referred to in subsec. (b)(1), was in the original “section 2807(b) of title 15”, and probably should have read “section 40(b) of the Consumer Product Safety Act”, which is classified to section 2087(b) of Title 15, Commerce and Trade.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 21 cases (12 in the last 5 years), 2011–2026 · leading case: Brian Sexton v. Panel Processing, Inc., 754 F.3d 332 (6th Cir. 2014).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Brian Sexton v. Panel Processing, Inc., 754 F.3d 332 (6th Cir. 2014). · cites it 4× “, 29 U.S.C. § 218c(a) (Consumer Financial Protection Act) (“provided .”

Summer Lashley v. Spartanburg Methodist Coll., 66 F.4th 168 (4th Cir. 2023). “§ 2302 (b)(8)(A); 29 U.S.C. § 218c; 15 U.S.C. § 78u- 6(a)(6); Lawson v.”

E.M.D. Sales, Inc. v. Carrera, 604 U.S. 45 (2025). “, 29 U. S. C. §218c(b)(1) (whistleblower-retaliation claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act); §464(c) (validity of union- established trusteeships); §722(a)(3)(A)(ii) (ineligibility for vocational rehabilitation services).”

Roger Wilson v. EI DuPont de Nemours & Co, 710 F. App'x 57 (3rd Cir. 2018). · cites it 3× “§ 2087 (a) and 29 U.S.C. § 218c, whistleblower provisions of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (“CPSIA”) and the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), respectively.”

Banks v. Soc'y of St. Vincent De Paul, 143 F. Supp. 3d 1097 (W.D. Wash. 2015). · cites it 5× “See 29 U.S.C. § 218c. Furthermore, reading “this title” to refer to Title 29 of the United States Code would render Title I of the PPACA — which is largely codified in Titles 42 and 26 of the United States Code, not Title 29 — without an anti-retaliation provision.”

Ogugua v. Not-For-Profit Hosp. Corp. Dba United Med. Ctr., 217 F. Supp. 3d 76 (D.D.C. 2016). · cites it 3× “Mehta, United States District Judge Plaintiff Magnus Ogugua alleges that his employer, Defendant Not-For-Profit Hospital Corporation, violated the anti-retaliation protections of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 218c, when it first suspended and then fired him…”

Jean-Louis v. Metro. Cable Commc'ns, Inc., 838 F. Supp. 2d 111 (S.D.N.Y. 2011). “29 U.S.C. § 218c. . The relevant Department of Labor regulation, 29 C.”

Wiley v. Asplundh Tree Expert Co., 4 F. Supp. 3d 840 (S.D.W. Va 2014). “Count 3 is a retaliatory dis *850 charge claim brought under 29 U.S.C. § 218c. (ECF 12 at 13.) The alleged factual basis for Count 3 is the retaliatory firing of Plaintiffs after they filed their lawsuit.”

Radford v. United States, 178 F. Supp. 3d 784 (E.D. Mo. 2016). · cites it 2× “Whistleblower Protection Program, 29 U.S.C. § 218c Plaintiffs cannot state a claim under the Whistleblower Protection Program provisions of the Affordable Care Act, 29 U.”

Taylor (D. Ariz. 2025). · cites it 5× “§ 2000e-2, 29 U.S.C. § 218c, A.R.S. § 23-1501, A.R.S.”

Bailey v. Dejoy (D. Me. 2021). · cites it 2× “§ 6703 ; (5) the whistleblower protections of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 218c, and 15 U.S.C. § 2087 (b); (6) the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.”

Painadath v. Good Shepherd Penn Partners (E.D. Pa. 2023). · cites it 2× “§ 18116 & 29 U.S.C. § 218c; Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.”

Show all 21 citing cases →

— 29 U.S.C. § 218c(a) — 2 cases

Brian Sexton v. Panel Processing, Inc., 754 F.3d 332 (6th Cir. 2014). “, 29 U.S.C. § 218c(a) (Consumer Financial Protection Act) (“provided .”

Brian Sexton v. Panel Processing, Inc. (6th Cir. 2014).

— 29 U.S.C. § 218c(a)(2) — 3 cases

Banks v. Soc'y of St. Vincent De Paul, 143 F. Supp. 3d 1097 (W.D. Wash. 2015). “See 29 U.S.C. § 218c. Furthermore, reading “this title” to refer to Title 29 of the United States Code would render Title I of the PPACA — which is largely codified in Titles 42 and 26 of the United States Code, not Title 29 — without an anti-retaliation provision.”

Painadath v. Good Shepherd Penn Partners (E.D. Pa. 2023). “§ 18116 & 29 U.S.C. § 218c; Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.”

Painadath v. Good Shepherd Penn Partners (E.D. Pa. 2025).

— 29 U.S.C. § 218c(a)(5) — 4 cases

Ogugua v. Not-For-Profit Hosp. Corp. Dba United Med. Ctr., 217 F. Supp. 3d 76 (D.D.C. 2016). “Mehta, United States District Judge Plaintiff Magnus Ogugua alleges that his employer, Defendant Not-For-Profit Hospital Corporation, violated the anti-retaliation protections of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 218c, when it first suspended and then fired him…”

Hilaire v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2022).

Francisco Alejandro Zuniga Coronado v. S&J Carpeting, LLC, et al. (W.D. Mich. 2026).

— 29 U.S.C. § 218c(b)(1) — 2 cases

Painadath v. Good Shepherd Penn Partners (E.D. Pa. 2025).

— 29 U.S.C. § 218c(b)(l) — 1 case

Roger Wilson v. EI DuPont de Nemours & Co, 710 F. App'x 57 (3rd Cir. 2018). “§ 2087 (a) and 29 U.S.C. § 218c, whistleblower provisions of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (“CPSIA”) and the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), respectively.”

— 29 U.S.C. § 218c(l) — 1 case

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.