Employee reprisal protections

The head of each agency must establish procedures that assure no employee is subjected to restraint, interference, coercion, discrimination, or reprisal for reporting unsafe conditions or participating in safety programs. See 1960.46(a).

• These procedures must cover reports of unsafe or unhealthful working conditions and other participation in agency occupational safety and health program activities.
• The procedures must also protect employees who exercise rights under section 19 of the OSH Act or Executive Order 12196.

(Reference: 1960.46(a).)

Yes. An employee may decline to perform an assigned task when they have a reasonable belief that the task poses an imminent risk of death or serious bodily harm and there is insufficient time to seek effective redress through normal hazard reporting and abatement procedures. See 1960.46(a).

• The protection applies only where the belief is reasonable and the situation does not allow time to use normal reporting or abatement channels.
• If time permits, employees should use the agency’s established hazard reporting and abatement procedures first.

(Reference: 1960.46(a).)

Employees are protected from restraint, interference, coercion, discrimination, or reprisal for filing reports of unsafe or unhealthful working conditions, participating in agency occupational safety and health program activities, or exercising rights under section 19 of the OSH Act or Executive Order 12196. See 1960.46(a).

• Examples of protected actions include reporting hazards, cooperating with safety inspections, attending required safety training, and declining to work when an imminent hazard exists and there is no time to use normal procedures.

(Reference: 1960.46(a).)

Civilian federal employees are covered by the reprisal protections of 29 CFR Part 1960, but uniquely military personnel and uniquely military equipment or operations are excluded from OSHA coverage; private contractors performing work under federal contracts can be covered when their work is comparable to private-sector operations. See 1960 and the OSHA interpretation at https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/standardinterpretations/2024-07-16.

• The OSHA letter of interpretation explains that Executive Order 12196 and Part 1960 exclude military personnel and uniquely military systems, while civilian employees working on non-unique systems are subject to OSHA-style protections (see https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/standardinterpretations/2024-07-16).
• If you are a contractor or civilian employee, your protections will depend on whether your workplace and operations are covered by federal agency OSH programs.

(References: 29 CFR Part 1960 and OSHA interpretation: https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/standardinterpretations/2024-07-16.)

A "reasonable belief" means the employee honestly and objectively believes, based on the circumstances a similarly situated worker would recognize, that the task poses an imminent risk of death or serious bodily harm. See 1960.46(a).

• The standard uses a reasonableness test rather than a purely subjective one: the belief should be one an ordinary person in the same situation would hold.
• If time allows, employees are expected to use normal hazard reporting and abatement procedures rather than immediately refusing work.

(Reference: 1960.46(a).)

Agencies must establish procedures to prevent reprisal and to handle reports and participation in safety programs; the Secretary of Labor was directed to evaluate agencies' procedures and report findings and recommendations to the President (historical reporting requirement). See 1960.46(a) and 1960.46(b).

• Paragraph (a) requires agencies to have procedures that assure no employee is retaliated against for protected activities.
• Paragraph (b) states that based on the Secretary’s evaluation of agencies’ procedures, the Secretary shall report to the President by September 30, 1982, his findings and recommendations—this is an historical accountability action in the rule text.

(References: 1960.46(a) and 1960.46(b).)

No. 1960.46(a) prohibits restraint, interference, coercion, discrimination, or reprisal against employees for reporting unsafe conditions or participating in agency occupational safety and health program activities. See 1960.46(a).

• Discipline, demotion, pay reduction, or other adverse actions taken because an employee reported hazards or participated in safety activities would conflict with 1960.46(a).

(Reference: 1960.46(a).)

If there is adequate time to use normal hazard reporting and abatement procedures, the employee should use those established agency procedures rather than immediately refusing the task. 1960.46(a) limits the right to decline work to situations where there is a reasonable belief of imminent danger and insufficient time to seek effective redress through normal procedures. See 1960.46(a).

• Using normal reporting channels helps resolve hazards while keeping the refusal exception reserved for urgent, time-critical risks.

(Reference: 1960.46(a).)

Yes; filing a report of an unsafe or unhealthful working condition is a protected activity under 1960.46(a), and exercising rights under section 19 of the OSH Act or Executive Order 12196 is also protected. See 1960.46(a).

• If an employee files an external complaint with OSHA or otherwise exercises rights under the Act or EO 12196, that activity falls within the types of participation 1960.46(a) protects.

(Reference: 1960.46(a).)

A civilian employee working at a military facility is protected by agency safety procedures when the work involves non-unique military systems or civilian workplace operations covered by federal agency OSH programs; however, OSHA and Part 1960 exclude uniquely military personnel and uniquely military equipment or operations. See 1960 and the OSHA interpretation at https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/standardinterpretations/2024-07-16.

• The OSHA letter of interpretation explains that Executive Order 12196 and Part 1960 exclude military personnel and uniquely military operations, but civilian employees performing comparable civilian-type work are covered (see https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/standardinterpretations/2024-07-16).
• If the hazard involves purely military-unique operations, the federal agency OSH program framework may not apply; if the work is civilian in nature, reprisal protections in Part 1960 apply.

(References: 29 CFR Part 1960 and OSHA interpretation: https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/standardinterpretations/2024-07-16.)

An agency procedure should explicitly prohibit retaliation for reporting hazards or participating in safety programs, provide a clear process for reporting and investigating reprisals, and ensure remedies where retaliation is found. 1960.46(a) requires procedures that assure no employee is subject to restraint or reprisal. See 1960.46(a).

Suggested elements (consistent with the statutory requirement):

• A clear non-retaliation policy and employee notice of rights.
• Accessible reporting channels and timelines for investigation.
• Confidentiality safeguards where appropriate.
• Corrective actions and remedies if retaliation is proven.

(Reference: 1960.46(a).)

An employee’s allegation of retaliation should be handled through the agency procedures the head of the agency is required to establish under 1960.46(a); depending on the situation, complaints may also be referred to oversight programs such as the Whistleblower Protection Program for additional review. See 1960.46(a) and the enforcement procedures discussion in https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/standardinterpretations/2016-11-10.

• 1960.46(a) obligates agencies to set up procedures to prevent and address reprisals.
• OSHA guidance on enforcement of employee-reporting protections has included referrals to the Whistleblower Protection Program in related contexts (see https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/standardinterpretations/2016-11-10).

(References: 1960.46(a) and OSHA memorandum: https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/standardinterpretations/2016-11-10.)

Yes. Participation in agency occupational safety and health program activities—such as safety training, meetings, or safety committees—is protected from restraint, coercion, and reprisal under 1960.46(a). See 1960.46(a).

• Employees cannot be penalized for attending required or voluntary safety activities that are part of the agency’s OSH program.

(Reference: 1960.46(a).)

An agency may apply alternate standards in certain circumstances, but any alternate standard process is governed by Part 1960 rules (for example, agencies have previously been required to request approval for alternate standards). Agencies still must maintain procedures preventing reprisal under 1960.46(a). See 1960 and the OSHA interpretation at https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/standardinterpretations/2019-04-19 which discusses the requirement to request approval for alternate standards (see the discussion of 29 CFR 1960.17 in that letter).

• Even where an agency adopts an alternate or agency-specific standard, 1960.46(a) independently requires procedures assuring protection from restraint or reprisal.
• The letter about hexavalent chromium notes that agencies may request alternate standards under Part 1960 but must follow the approval process (see https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/standardinterpretations/2019-04-19).

(References: 29 CFR Part 1960 and OSHA interpretation: https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/standardinterpretations/2019-04-19.)

Yes. The protection in 1960.46(a) covers reports of unsafe or unhealthful working conditions generally, not only those controlled by a specific OSHA standard. Agencies must establish procedures to prevent reprisal for reporting hazardous conditions or participating in OSH activities. See 1960.46(a).

• If a hazard is not directly covered by a specific OSHA standard, the agency’s OSH program procedures still must protect employees who report that hazard.

(Reference: 1960.46(a).)