No — an employee's request to withdraw a complaint does not automatically stop OSHA's investigation. The regulation explains that the Secretary's jurisdiction cannot be foreclosed by the employee's unilateral action, although a voluntary, uncoerced request will be given careful consideration and substantial weight. See 1977.17 and the broader 1977 part page.
OSHA will give a voluntary and uncoerced request to withdraw a complaint careful consideration and substantial weight, but it may still continue its investigation. The regulation states that such requests are an important policy factor, though they do not automatically end OSHA jurisdiction. See 1977.17.
Yes — OSHA may continue the investigation even if the complainant asks to withdraw when the enforcement of Section 11(c) is deemed to serve public interest beyond the individual's rights. The regulation highlights that enforcement protects both individual rights and public interest, so withdrawal does not automatically terminate the Secretary's jurisdiction. See 1977.17.
OSHA weighs whether the withdrawal is voluntary and uncoerced and balances the complainant's request against the public interest in enforcement. The regulation says voluntary, uncoerced requests get substantial weight, but the Secretary still may proceed if other enforcement considerations apply. See 1977.17.
No — an employer cannot assume OSHA will stop its investigation or enforcement simply because an employee withdraws a complaint; OSHA may continue where public interest or other factors justify it. The regulation makes clear the Secretary's jurisdiction is not automatically ended by unilateral withdrawal. See 1977.17.
OSHA will not treat a coerced or involuntary withdrawal as dispositive and will investigate allegations of coercion; only voluntary, uncoerced withdrawals are given substantial weight. The regulation stresses the importance of voluntariness and does not allow unilateral actions that foreclose jurisdiction. See 1977.17.
Yes — OSHA can reopen or continue inquiries despite a prior withdrawal if new information or enforcement considerations justify further action; withdrawal does not permanently bar OSHA from investigating. The regulation states the Secretary's jurisdiction is not foreclosed by unilateral withdrawal. See 1977.17.
The regulation does not specify a required format, so OSHA may accept oral or written withdrawal, but investigators will document the request and assess whether it is voluntary and uncoerced before giving it substantial weight. See 1977.17.
OSHA may inform the employer of the complainant's withdrawal as part of its investigation and case handling, but that disclosure does not determine whether OSHA continues its inquiry; communications are handled consistent with investigative needs and confidentiality rules. The regulation emphasizes that withdrawal does not automatically end jurisdiction. See 1977.17.
A withdrawal may reduce the complainant's role in the case, but it does not necessarily prevent OSHA from seeking remedies or corrective actions if the agency determines enforcement is warranted for public interest or legal reasons. The regulation explains that withdrawal is not an absolute bar to continued action by the Secretary. See 1977.17.
No — leaving the workplace to file a complaint with OSHA generally does not count as protected activity under Section 11(c) unless the specific requirements for protected refusal are met. The 1983 letter of interpretation explains that leaving the workplace to file a complaint removes the individual from the narrow conditions that can make a work refusal protected, and 1977.17 affirms that enforcement decisions are not solely controlled by the complainant's actions.
A work refusal is protected only when the stringent conditions in the refusal regulations are met; simply leaving work to file a complaint usually disqualifies the activity from protection. The 1983 letter of interpretation explains that protection applies only if the employee stayed at work after warning the employer and met all conditions of the refusal rules, while 1977.17 addresses withdrawal of complaints.
OSHA will consider a withdrawal requested by a third party, but it will evaluate whether the request is truly voluntary and authorized by the complainant before giving it substantial weight; a unilateral third-party withdrawal does not automatically terminate the investigation. The regulation emphasizes voluntariness and the Secretary's continuing jurisdiction. See 1977.17.
Yes — if an employee withdraws due to intimidation or coercion, OSHA can investigate and pursue retaliation claims against the employer; coerced withdrawals are not treated as voluntary and do not negate enforcement. The regulation states that only voluntary, uncoerced withdrawals are given substantial weight. See 1977.17.
No — while public interest is a significant factor, OSHA does not automatically always continue investigations; it balances the voluntary withdrawal against enforcement considerations and may choose to stop or continue depending on the circumstances. The regulation explains this balancing approach. See 1977.17.
Employers should not assume the case is closed and should continue to cooperate with OSHA while documenting the withdrawal and any surrounding circumstances; OSHA may still investigate if it believes enforcement or public interest requires it. The regulation warns that withdrawal does not automatically terminate the Secretary's jurisdiction. See 1977.17.
Investigators should record the complainant's statement, the context of the request, any witnesses, and any signs of coercion or pressure; detailed documentation helps determine whether the withdrawal was voluntary and how much weight to give it. The regulation stresses voluntariness and that withdrawal does not automatically end jurisdiction. See 1977.17.
If an employee stayed at work after warning the employer about a life-threatening hazard and was then fired for refusing to expose themselves, the refusal likely would be protected; but leaving the workplace to file a complaint typically removes protection. The 1983 letter of interpretation explains that protection for refusal depends on meeting the specific conditions in the refusal rules, while 1977.17 covers withdrawal considerations.