Employee discrimination proceedings

Under 1977.10(a), an employer may not discharge or otherwise discriminate against an employee because the employee has "instituted or caused to be instituted any proceeding under or related to this Act."

• The regulation explicitly links this prohibition to section 11(c) of the Act and makes clear that retaliation for bringing or causing proceedings is unlawful.
• The rule also says that when deciding whether a particular action counts as a proceeding "related to" the Act, the factors in 1977.9 should be considered.

Yes. Section 8 inspections are specifically listed as protected proceedings in 1977.10(a).

• The text of 1977.10(a) names "inspections of worksites under section 8 of the Act" as a clear example of a proceeding under or related to the Act, meaning employees involved with or who prompt those inspections are protected from discharge or discrimination.

Yes. An employee contest of an abatement date under section 10(c) is given as an explicit example of a protected proceeding in 1977.10(a).

• Because the regulation lists contests of abatement dates under section 10(c) among proceedings covered by the discharge/discrimination prohibition, employees who initiate or cause such contests are protected from retaliation.

Yes. Initiating proceedings for promulgation of an occupational safety and health standard under section 6(b) and part 1911 is explicitly listed in 1977.10(a) as a protected proceeding.

• That means employees who start or cause rulemaking petitions or related activity tied to section 6(b) or part 1911 are covered by the prohibition on discharge or discrimination.

Yes. An employee application for modification or revocation of a variance under section 6(d) and part 1905 is specifically listed in 1977.10(a) as a proceeding covered by the anti-discrimination rule.

• Because 1977.10(a) names variance-modification or -revocation applications, employees engaged in those steps are protected from employer retaliation.

Yes. A judicial challenge to a standard under section 6(f) is listed as a specific example of a proceeding covered by 1977.10(a).

• That means employees who bring, cause, or participate in such judicial challenges are within the protections against discharge or discrimination identified in the regulation.

Yes. Employee appeals of an Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission order under section 11(a) are expressly listed in 1977.10(a) as proceedings covered by the anti-discrimination protection.

• Employees who appeal Commission orders (or who cause such appeals) are therefore protected from discharge or other retaliation tied to that activity.

No. 1977.10(b) states that an employee need not personally institute the proceedings to be protected.

• It is sufficient if the employee "sets into motion activities of others which result in proceedings under or related to the Act," so indirect actions that lead to proceedings are covered by the anti-discrimination rule.

Yes. Under 1977.10(b), it is sufficient for protection if an employee "sets into motion activities of others which result in proceedings under or related to the Act," so urging coworkers or a union to take action that results in a proceeding would fall within that protection.

• The regulation does not require the employee to be the formal filer; causing or initiating others’ actions that produce a covered proceeding is enough to trigger the anti-discrimination safeguard.

You use the factors described in 1977.9 to decide whether a given action qualifies as a proceeding "related to" the Act, as 1977.10(a) directs.

• 1977.10(a) explicitly instructs that the considerations discussed in 1977.9 apply when determining whether a proceeding is "related to" the Act, so review 1977.9 for the applicable guiding factors.

Yes. 1977.10(a) explicitly lists inspections under section 8 and other employee-initiated steps that can lead to proceedings, so filing a complaint that prompts OSHA involvement is the type of activity the rule protects.

• Because the regulation names inspection-related activities and refers you to 1977.9 for relatedness questions, informal actions that produce a covered proceeding are treated as protected conduct.

Yes. 1977.10(a) lists appeals of Review Commission orders under section 11(a) as protected proceedings, and 1977.10(b) confirms that an employee need not personally file the proceeding to be protected.

• Taken together, those provisions protect employees who arrange, assist, or otherwise "set into motion" another person’s appeal or participation in such a proceeding from employer retaliation.