Employee testimony protection

Yes. Under 1977.11, an employee may not be discharged or otherwise discriminated against because they "have testified or are about to testify" in proceedings under or related to the Act, and that protection explicitly includes statements made during inspections and investigations.

• This protection covers judicial, quasi-judicial, and administrative proceedings, including OSHA inspections and investigations.
• Employers who retaliate for such testimony can face enforcement action under the OSH Act; see Part 1977 for the overall discrimination protections.

Yes. Under 1977.11, an employee who "is about to testify" in proceedings under or related to the Act is protected from discharge or discrimination, and the regulation specifically includes administrative rulemaking and adjudicative functions as covered proceedings.

• Protection applies even before testimony occurs, so employers cannot lawfully act against an employee solely because the employee intends to testify.
• If an employer takes adverse action for that reason, the employee may file a discrimination complaint under Part 1977.

Yes. Under 1977.11, protection is not limited to testimony initiated by the employee; it extends to any statements given in proceedings under or related to the Act, so testifying on behalf of a coworker is covered.

• This includes providing evidence or statements in inspections, investigations, hearings, or administrative rulemaking.
• Employers may not lawfully retaliate against an employee for giving such testimony; see Part 1977 for the full discrimination framework.

Yes. Under 1977.11, discrimination because an employee "has testified or is about to testify" is prohibited, and adverse employment actions such as demotion fall within that prohibition if motivated by the testimony.

• The key issue is motive: if the demotion was because of the testimony, it is unlawful.
• If an employee believes a demotion was retaliation, they can pursue a Section 11(c) complaint under Part 1977.

Yes. Under 1977.11, protection extends to "statements given in the course of" inspections and investigations, so informal (non-sworn) statements to OSHA inspectors are covered if they are part of proceedings under or related to the Act.

• The regulation treats such statements the same as other testimony for protection purposes.
• Employers who retaliate for these statements may be subject to enforcement under Part 1977.

Yes. Under 1977.11, the protection covers proceedings "under or related to the Act," and that includes inspections and investigations conducted by OSHA or authorized state plans related to enforcement of occupational safety and health requirements.

• If the proceeding is part of enforcement under the OSH Act framework, the anti-discrimination protections apply.
• Consult the applicable state plan rules as well as Part 1977 for filing procedures and enforcement avenues.

Yes. Under 1977.11, discrimination includes threats or coercion that are intended to prevent an employee from testifying, because the regulation protects employees who "have testified or are about to testify."

• Threats, intimidation, or other actions meant to deter testimony can be treated as unlawful discrimination.
• Employees experiencing such threats may file a complaint under Part 1977.

Not automatically. Section 11(c) protects employees from discrimination for testifying or being about to testify under 1977.11, but filing a complaint and leaving the workplace can affect protection for related actions such as work refusals.

• As explained in the July 11, 1983 Letters of Interpretation, leaving the workplace to file a complaint is not generally a protected work refusal under Section 12(b)(2); that LOI notes that absence from the workplace may take the employee out of the realm of protected activity in some refusal-to-work situations.
• If the adverse action was specifically because the employee filed or intended to testify, protections under 1977.11 still apply; the factual details determine whether the action is unlawful, and an employee should seek enforcement under Part 1977.

Possibly. Under 1977.11, protection applies to testimony in proceedings "under or related to the Act," so testimony in internal grievance hearings is protected only if the hearing is part of or related to enforcement of rights under the OSH Act.

• If the internal proceeding is connected to an OSHA complaint, investigation, or to enforcement of the Act, protection is more likely to apply.
• If the proceeding is purely internal and not related to OSH Act processes, 1977.11 may not apply; review the circumstances and consult Part 1977 for guidance on filing a complaint.

An employee must show that adverse action was taken because they "have testified or are about to testify" in an OSHA-related proceeding, as protected by 1977.11.

• Demonstrate that you engaged in protected testimony or were about to testify.
• Show an adverse action (e.g., firing, demotion, threats) occurred after or connected to that protected activity.
• Provide evidence linking the employer's action to the testimony (timing, statements by supervisors, inconsistent reasons).
• For procedural details on enforcement, see Part 1977.

Yes. Under 1977.11, protection covers statements given in inspections, investigations, and related proceedings, and that protection applies to written statements and testimony given without public identification if the statement is part of an OSHA-related proceeding.

• Even if the employee attempts to remain anonymous, retaliation for providing a statement can still be unlawful.
• If an employer identifies and retaliates against a purportedly anonymous witness, that action may violate Part 1977; document communications and seek enforcement assistance.

Yes, but only for legitimate disciplinary reasons unrelated to protected participation. Under 1977.11, employees are protected from discrimination for testifying or being about to testify, but providing intentionally false testimony that violates workplace rules could expose the employee to legitimate disciplinary action so long as the employer can show the action was for the false statement and not a pretext for retaliation.

• Employers should document the basis for discipline and ensure consistent enforcement of rules.
• If an employee believes the stated reason is a pretext for retaliation for participation in an OSHA proceeding, they can file a complaint under Part 1977.

Yes. Under 1977.11, the prohibition on discharge or discrimination for testifying applies to "any employee," which includes employees of contractors and temporary agencies where the testimony relates to proceedings under or related to the Act.

• Host employers and staffing agencies should not retaliate against such workers for testifying.
• If a contractor or temporary worker experiences retaliation, they may pursue remedies through Part 1977, and should document the adverse action and connection to their testimony.

OSHA views threats or coercion that chill cooperation as prohibited under 1977.11, because the regulation protects employees who "have testified or are about to testify" and encompasses intimidation intended to prevent testimony.

• Such chilling tactics can constitute unlawful discrimination and are actionable.
• If an employee stops cooperating due to employer threats, they should report the retaliation and may file a complaint under Part 1977; document dates, witnesses, and exact language of threats.

No. Under 1977.11, employees are protected from discrimination for testifying or being about to testify in proceedings under or related to the Act, so policies that effectively prevent or penalize employees for speaking to OSHA or testifying could violate the regulation.

• Employers may have legitimate policies about media or legal representation, but those policies cannot be enforced in a way that punishes protected testimony.
• If an employee is disciplined for speaking with OSHA without employer approval, they should consider filing a complaint under Part 1977.