33 U.S.C. § 1367

Employee protection

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 33 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Discrimination against persons filing, instituting, or testifying in proceedings under this chapter prohibited

No person shall fire, or in any other way discriminate against, or cause to be fired or discriminated against, any employee or any authorized representative of employees by reason of the fact that such employee or representative has filed, instituted, or caused to be filed or instituted any proceeding under this chapter, or has testified or is about to testify in any proceeding resulting from the administration or enforcement of the provisions of this chapter.

(b) Application for review; investigation; hearing; review

Any employee or a representative of employees who believes that he has been fired or otherwise discriminated against by any person in violation of subsection (a) of this section may, within thirty days after such alleged violation occurs, apply to the Secretary of Labor for a review of such firing or alleged discrimination. A copy of the application shall be sent to such person who shall be the respondent. Upon receipt of such application, the Secretary of Labor shall cause such investigation to be made as he deems appropriate. Such investigation shall provide an opportunity for a public hearing at the request of any party to such review to enable the parties to present information relating to such alleged violation. The parties shall be given written notice of the time and place of the hearing at least five days prior to the hearing. Any such hearing shall be of record and shall be subject to section 554 of title 5. Upon receiving the report of such investigation, the Secretary of Labor shall make findings of fact. If he finds that such violation did occur, he shall issue a decision, incorporating an order therein and his findings, requiring the party committing such violation to take such affirmative action to abate the violation as the Secretary of Labor deems appropriate, including, but not limited to, the rehiring or reinstatement of the employee or representative of employees to his former position with compensation. If he finds that there was no such violation, he shall issue an order denying the application. Such order issued by the Secretary of Labor under this subparagraph shall be subject to judicial review in the same manner as orders and decisions of the Administrator are subject to judicial review under this chapter.

Whenever an order is issued under this section to abate such violation, at the request of the applicant, a sum equal to the aggregate amount of all costs and expenses (including the attorney’s fees), as determined by the Secretary of Labor, to have been reasonably incurred by the applicant for, or in connection with, the institution and prosecution of such proceedings, shall be assessed against the person committing such violation.

(d) Deliberate violations by employee acting without direction from his employer or his agent

This section shall have no application to any employee who, acting without direction from his employer (or his agent) deliberately violates any prohibition of effluent limitation or other limitation under section 1311 or 1312 of this title, standards of performance under section 1316 of this title, effluent standard, prohibition or pretreatment standard under section 1317 of this title, or any other prohibition or limitation established under this chapter.

(e) Investigations of employment reductions

The Administrator shall conduct continuing evaluations of potential loss or shifts of employment which may result from the issuance of any effluent limitation or order under this chapter, including, where appropriate, investigating threatened plant closures or reductions in employment allegedly resulting from such limitation or order. Any employee who is discharged or laid-off, threatened with discharge or lay-off, or otherwise discriminated against by any person because of the alleged results of any effluent limitation or order issued under this chapter, or any representative of such employee, may request the Administrator to conduct a full investigation of the matter. The Administrator shall thereupon investigate the matter and, at the request of any party, shall hold public hearings on not less than five days notice, and shall at such hearings require the parties, including the employer involved, to present information relating to the actual or potential effect of such limitation or order on employment and on any alleged discharge, lay-off, or other discrimination and the detailed reasons or justification therefor. Any such hearing shall be of record and shall be subject to section 554 of title 5. Upon receiving the report of such investigation, the Administrator shall make findings of fact as to the effect of such effluent limitation or order on employment and on the alleged discharge, lay-off, or discrimination and shall make such recommendations as he deems appropriate. Such report, findings, and recommendations shall be available to the public. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to require or authorize the Administrator to modify or withdraw any effluent limitation or order issued under this chapter.

(June 30, 1948, ch. 758, title V, § 507, as added Pub. L. 92–500, § 2, Oct. 18, 1972, 86 Stat. 890.)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 87 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1974–2025 · leading case: Abdur-Rahman v. Walker, 567 F.3d 1278 (11th Cir. 2009).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Abdur-Rahman v. Walker, 567 F.3d 1278 (11th Cir. 2009). · cites it 6× “The inspectors complained that their employment was terminated in retaliation for reporting to their supervisors about the compliance of the county with the Clean Water Act, in violation of rights secured by the whistleblower provision of the Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1367 (a), and the…”

Fed. Mar. Comm'n v. South Carolina State Ports Auth., 535 U.S. 743 (2002). · cites it 2× “) (Clean Air Act); 33 U. S. C. § 1367 (Clean Water Act); 15 U.”

Edwards v. AH Cornell & Son, Inc., 610 F.3d 217 (3rd Cir. 2010). · cites it 4× “" 33 U.S.C. § 1367 (a). We held in Passaic Valley that the term "proceeding" within Section 507(a) is ambiguous: "The term may reasonably be invoked to encompass a range of complaint activity of varying degrees of formal legal status.”

Gregory C. SassÉ v. United States Dep't of Labor United States Dep't of Just., 409 F.3d 773 (6th Cir. 2005). · cites it 4× “§ 6971 (a), and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (“FWPCA”), 33 U.S.C. § 1367 (a). Because Sassé did not engage in a whistleblowing activity protected by these statutes, and because in any event, Sassé’s claims are untimely, we will AFFIRM the decision of the ARB.”

Anderson v. United States Dep't of Labor, 422 F.3d 1155 (10th Cir. 2005). · cites it 3× “See 33 U.S.C. § 1367 (a) (FWPCA); 42 U.S.C. §§ 6971 (a) (SWDA), 9610(a) (CERCLA) (emphasis added).”

Gary Vander Boegh v. EnergySolutions, Inc., 772 F.3d 1056 (6th Cir. 2014). · cites it 3× “§ 300j-9(i); Clean Water Act (“CWA”), 33 U.S.C. § 1367 ; Toxic Substances Control Act (“TSCA”), 15 U.”

Env't Prot. Agency v. Nat'l Crushed Stone Ass'n, 449 U.S. 64 (1980). · cites it 3× “890 , 33 U. S. C. § 1367 (e). 23 This provision had two purposes: to allow EPA constantly to monitor the economic effect on industry of pollution control rules and to undercut economic threats by industry that would create pressure to relax effluent limitation rules.”

Hugh Kaufman v. Thomas Perez, 745 F.3d 521 (D.C. Cir. 2014). · cites it 4× “§ 6971 ; the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1367 ; the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, 42 U.”

DeKalb Cnty. v. U.S. Dep't of Labor, 812 F.3d 1015 (11th Cir. 2016). · cites it 3× “ROSENTHAL, District Judge: This petition for review asks us to clarify the standard the Department of Labor’s Administrative Review Board applies to an appeal from an Administrative Law Judge’s findings and conclusions in a proceeding under the Federal Water Pollution Control…”

Connecticut Dep't of Env't Prot. v. Occupational Saf. & Health Admin., 138 F. Supp. 2d 285 (D. Conn. 2001). · cites it 7× “§ 7622 , the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1367 , and the Solid Waste Disposal Act, 42 U.”

Winters v. Houston Chronicle Publ'g Co., 795 S.W.2d 723 (Tex. 1990). · cites it 2× “§ 815 (c)(1) (1988); Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1367 (a) (1988); Longshoreman's and Harbor Worker's Compensation Act, 33 U.”

David Charvat v. E. Ohio Reg'l Wastewater Auth., 246 F.3d 607 (6th Cir. 2001). · cites it 2× “33 U.S.C. § 1367 (a). The section then outlines the procedure for filing a complaint with the Secretary of Labor.”

Show all 87 citing cases →

— 33 U.S.C. § 1367(a) — 1 case

Immanuel v. US Dept of Labor (4th Cir. 1998).

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.