Employee discrimination protections

Under 1977.12(b)(2), a refusal-to-work is protected only when all the listed elements are present: the employee faced a real danger of death or serious injury, had no reasonable alternative, there was insufficient time to use normal enforcement channels, the employee acted in good faith, and, where possible, the employee asked the employer to correct the danger and the employer failed to do so.

• The regulation lays out these conditions explicitly in 1977.12(b)(2).
• For practical guidance about how a refusal can lose protection if the employee leaves the workplace, see OSHA’s interpretation in Work refusal and OSH Act protections | July 11, 1983.

Under 1977.12(b)(1), no—employees generally do not have a right under the OSH Act to walk off the job simply because they suspect an unsafe condition.

• The rule explains that hazardous conditions are ordinarily corrected by the employer once notified, and employees normally have other options such as requesting an OSHA inspection under the Act; see 1977.12(b)(1).
• OSHA’s July 11, 1983 interpretation reiterates that leaving the workplace and remaining absent from the shift generally takes the employee out of the realm of protected activity (Work refusal and OSH Act protections | 1983-07-11).

Under 1977.12(a), yes—employees are protected from discrimination for exercising rights afforded by the Act, including requesting information from OSHA or cooperating with inspectors.

• The provision explicitly notes that requesting information from OSHA and being interviewed by OSHA agents are examples of protected activities under 1977.12(a).
• Employers cannot lawfully take adverse action against employees for these protected activities; see 1977.12.

Under 1977.12(b)(2), ‘good faith’ means the employee honestly believes that performing the task would expose them to a real danger of death or serious injury and that belief is reasonable under the circumstances.

• The regulation requires that the employee’s refusal be made in good faith and that a reasonable person in the same situation would see a real danger; see 1977.12(b)(2).
• OSHA’s interpretation in Work refusal and OSH Act protections | 1983-07-11 underscores that meeting these stringent conditions is necessary for protection.

Under 1977.12(b)(2), ‘insufficient time’ means the danger is so immediate and urgent that the employee cannot reasonably wait for OSHA inspection or other statutory enforcement procedures to eliminate the hazard.

• The standard requires that the situation be urgent enough that resorting to normal enforcement channels (like requesting an OSHA inspection) would not prevent imminent death or serious injury; see 1977.12(b)(2).
• If there is time to seek inspection or employer correction, a refusal to work is less likely to be protected (see 1977.12(b)(1)).

Under 1977.12(b)(2), where possible the employee should notify the employer of the dangerous condition and request correction before refusing to perform the task.

• The regulation states that the employee, where possible, must have sought correction from the employer and been unable to obtain it for the refusal to be protected; see 1977.12(b)(2).
• Practical steps include immediately telling a supervisor about the hazard, requesting remedial action in writing if feasible, and documenting the time, person notified, and response.

Under 1977.12(b)(2), ‘no reasonable alternative’ means the employee had no safe way to avoid the dangerous task (for example, reassignment, temporary cessation while fix is made, or use of available safety equipment) and therefore had to choose between performing the task or facing serious injury or death.

• The regulation requires that the employee have no reasonable alternative to performing the task that would avoid exposure to the danger; see 1977.12(b)(2).
• Employers and employees should consider whether temporary measures (e.g., shutting equipment down, isolating hazard, providing PPE or assistance) were available before concluding there was no alternative.

Under 1977.12(b)(2), the determination of whether a refusal was reasonable and in good faith is an objective legal question typically decided by OSHA or, if contested, by courts or administrative law judges, not solely by the employee or employer.

• The regulation sets an objective standard: a reasonable person in the same circumstances must conclude there was a real danger of death or serious injury; see 1977.12(b)(2).
• OSHA’s interpretation history (e.g., Work refusal and OSH Act protections | 1983-07-11) reflects that OSHA and courts apply these standards when evaluating Section 11(c) complaints.

Under 1977.12(a), yes—cooperating with OSHA inspectors is a protected activity, and an employer may not lawfully discipline an employee for such cooperation.

• The provision explicitly states that employees interviewed by agents of the Secretary in inspections or investigations cannot be discriminated against because of their cooperation; see 1977.12(a).
• If you believe you were disciplined for cooperating, you can file a Section 11(c) complaint alleging retaliation under the Act (see 1977.12).

Under 1977.12(b)(2) and related guidance, protection is jeopardized if the employee leaves the workplace and does not stay available to resolve the hazard; leaving the workplace and being absent for the remainder of the shift generally removes the protection.

• While the regulation protects refusals made when no reasonable alternative exists and the danger is imminent, OSHA’s interpretation in Work refusal and OSH Act protections | 1983-07-11 explains that walking off the job and remaining absent typically takes the employee out of protected activity.
• If you must refuse work, try to remain at the workplace, notify the employer, and document the hazard and your communications to preserve protection.

Under 1977.12(b)(1), yes—an employer may ordinarily discipline an employee for refusing tasks based on alleged hazards that are not imminently life-threatening, because protections for refusal are narrow and reserved for imminent dangers.

• The regulation explains that as a general matter employees do not have a right to walk off the job for potential unsafe conditions and that employers will usually correct hazards once informed; see 1977.12(b)(1).
• For disputes about hazards, employees normally should request an OSHA inspection or use other enforcement channels rather than refuse work absent imminent danger.

Under 1977.12(a), yes—requesting information from OSHA is an exercise of rights afforded by the Act and is protected from employer discrimination.

• The regulation gives requesting information from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration as an example of activity protected under the Act; see 1977.12(a).
• If an employer retaliates because you requested OSHA information, you may have grounds for a Section 11(c) complaint (see 1977.12).

Under 1977.12(b)(2), employees should document the hazard, their reasonable belief of imminent danger, communications with the employer requesting correction, any employer responses, and witnesses; this documentation supports a claim that the refusal met the regulation’s conditions.

• Keep dated notes, written reports to supervisors (emails or text messages are useful), photos or videos of the hazard, names of witnesses, and any medical or injury-related evidence. See the legal elements in 1977.12(b)(2).
• OSHA’s interpretation in Work refusal and OSH Act protections | 1983-07-11 emphasizes that meeting the regulation’s stringent conditions is necessary for protection, so documentation is critical.

Under 1977.12, if an employee believes they were discriminated against for protected activity (including certain refusals), they may file a Section 11(c) discrimination complaint with OSHA to request investigation and potential relief.

• The regulation identifies discrimination protections under section 11(c) and the refusal conditions in 1977.12.
• If the refusal was not protected (e.g., non-imminent hazard or employee left the workplace), OSHA’s interpretation (Work refusal and OSH Act protections | 1983-07-11) notes that such complaints may not succeed; nevertheless, filing allows OSHA to review the facts and make a determination.

Under 1977.12(b)(2), assigning the task to another employee does not automatically make the original refusal unprotected, but the underlying conditions must still be met for protection to apply—if the danger is real and imminent and the refusing employee met the regulation’s requirements, their refusal may be protected.

• The regulation focuses on whether the original employee reasonably faced imminent danger with no alternative and sought correction where possible; see 1977.12(b)(2).
• Practical considerations: employers should not coerce other employees to take on life-threatening tasks without proper controls, and employees asked to perform such tasks should evaluate the same criteria for protection and safety.

Under 1977.12(a), yes—the Act explicitly provides a right to participate as a party in enforcement proceedings (section 10), and participating in enforcement proceedings is protected from discrimination under section 11(c).

• The regulation mentions the explicit right to participate as a party in enforcement proceedings and states that such activity is protected under 1977.12(a).
• If an employer retaliates against an employee for participating in enforcement, the employee may have grounds to file a Section 11(c) complaint (see 1977.12).

Under 1977.12(b)(1), simply reporting a hazard that the employer disputes does not necessarily protect an employee from discipline for refusing work; protection for refusal is limited and usually requires imminent danger and exhaustion of reasonable alternatives.

• The regulation explains that employers will ordinarily correct hazards once notified and that disputes about hazards are normally resolved through inspection or enforcement channels rather than by walking off the job; see 1977.12(b)(1).
• If the hazard involves imminent life-threatening danger and the employee meets the strict elements in 1977.12(b)(2), they may be protected; otherwise, use OSHA inspection requests to resolve disputes.

Under 1977.12, the protections for refusals and other rights under the Act apply regardless of whether a workplace is unionized; however, existing grievance procedures may affect what counts as a reasonable alternative before refusing work.

• The regulation does not carve out different rights for union versus non-union workplaces; the legal elements for protected refusal are set out in 1977.12(b)(2).
• In practice, a viable internal safety grievance process could be considered a reasonable alternative to refusing work unless the danger is so imminent that there is insufficient time to use those channels.

Under 1977.12(a), examples of protected activities include filing complaints, instituting proceedings, testifying in proceedings related to the Act, requesting information from OSHA, and cooperating with OSHA inspections.

• The regulation explicitly lists these activities as being protected by section 11(c) of the Act; see 1977.12(a).
• Participation as a party in enforcement proceedings (section 10) is another explicit right the regulation cites as protected (see 1977.12).

Under 1977.12(b)(2) and OSHA guidance, leaving the workplace to avoid a hazard and being absent for the remainder of the shift typically removes the employee from protected activity, and OSHA has said such conduct usually will not be protected.

• OSHA’s July 11, 1983 letter (Work refusal and OSH Act protections | 1983-07-11) explains that leaving the workplace took the complainant out of the realm of protection and that refusals are protected only under strict conditions.
• To maximize protection, employees should remain on-site if possible, notify the employer, and seek correction or inspection rather than simply leaving.

Under 1977.12(a), no—requesting an OSHA inspection (or requesting information from OSHA) is an exercise of rights under the Act and is protected from employer retaliation.

• The regulation states that requesting information from OSHA and related exercises of statutory rights are protected activities; see 1977.12(a).
• If an employer retaliates for requesting an inspection, the employee may file a Section 11(c) complaint for discrimination under the Act (see 1977.12).

Under 1977.12(b)(2), courts and OSHA apply the refusal-to-work protection elements strictly and require that all conditions (imminent danger, no reasonable alternative, insufficient time for enforcement, good faith, and seeking employer correction where possible) be satisfied.

• The regulation itself frames refusal protections as narrow and contingent on stringent conditions; see 1977.12(b)(2).
• OSHA’s interpretation in Work refusal and OSH Act protections | 1983-07-11 illustrates that OSHA and courts are likely to conclude that many refusals are not protected when those strict conditions are not met.