Employee refusal of safety rules

Yes. Under 1977.22, disciplinary actions taken solely because an employee refuses to comply with appropriate safety rules or OSHA standards generally are not considered unlawful discrimination under Section 11(c).

• Employers may enforce valid safety rules implemented in furtherance of the OSH Act.
• This does not prevent employees from raising safety concerns by the protected procedures described elsewhere, but refusal to follow rules is not itself a protected activity under 1977.22.
• See also 1977 for the part title and broader context.

A valid safety rule is an employer rule or an OSHA standard that reasonably furthers workplace safety and health and is applied consistently. The 1977.22 text makes clear that refusal to comply with such appropriate safety rules can justify discipline.

• Valid rules should be clear, related to safety, and consistently enforced.
• Rules that conflict with OSHA standards or discriminate against protected activity may be invalid; consult 1977 for general guidance.
• If in doubt whether a rule is reasonable, document the safety rationale and how it aligns with OSHA requirements.

No. Under 1977.22, refusal to comply with appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) rules is not ordinarily protected under Section 11(c), and employers may discipline employees who refuse PPE required by law or valid workplace rules.

• Employers should ensure PPE rules match OSHA standards and are applied consistently.
• If an employee raises a good-faith complaint about PPE availability or adequacy, that complaint may be protected even if refusal to wear PPE is not; keep records of complaints and employer responses.

They differ because refusing to comply with valid safety rules is generally not protected, while a refusal to work can be protected only when the narrow conditions in 1977.12 are met. 1977.22 makes the distinction explicit.

• 1977.12 sets stringent requirements (e.g., imminent danger, good-faith attempt to obtain safe conditions, no reasonable alternative) for a refusal to work to be protected.
• A refusal to follow a safety rule without meeting those conditions can lead to discipline without being treated as retaliation under Section 11(c).
• The 1983 OSHA letter of interpretation explains that leaving the workplace or not meeting 1977.12 conditions removes protection: see Work refusal and OSH Act protections | 1983-07-11.

No. Leaving the workplace generally removes the narrow protection for a refusal to work under 1977.12, and 1977.22 clarifies that simple refusal to follow safety rules is not protected. The 1983 letter of interpretation states that leaving the worksite can take the situation out of protected activity. See Work refusal and OSH Act protections | 1983-07-11.

• If an employee remains on-site, follows the steps in 1977.12, and faces a life-threatening hazard, protection may apply.
• Employers should still investigate the reported hazard and document actions taken.

Yes, as long as the new rule is an appropriate safety rule or consistent with OSHA standards, discipline for refusal is generally allowed under 1977.22.

• Ensure the new rule is published and communicated clearly to employees.
• Train employees on the new rule and document training to reduce disputes about notice and validity.
• If the new rule conflicts with OSHA requirements or suppresses protected complaints, it may be invalid—review with safety counsel as needed.

No. Being disciplined for refusing to follow a safety rule does not by itself prevent an employee from filing complaints with OSHA or raising safety concerns through protected channels described elsewhere in 1977. 1977.22 speaks only to protection from discriminatory action based solely on refusal to comply.

• Employees can still report hazards or file complaints about safety violations.
• If discipline is actually retaliatory for protected activity (e.g., reporting hazards), that could violate Section 11(c) even if employer cites rule refusal—investigate and document timing and motive.

Document clearly that disciplinary action was based on failure to follow a valid safety rule and evidence of notice or training, because 1977.22 allows discipline for such refusals.

• Record the specific rule violated, dates, prior warnings, training records, and employee acknowledgments.
• Note any safety rationale showing the rule furthered OSHA standards or employer safety policy.
• Keep records of employee complaints or reports to ensure discipline was not in retaliation for protected activity.

Yes, but only in narrow circumstances where the conditions of 1977.12 for a protected work refusal are met; otherwise 1977.22 applies and the refusal is not protected. The 1983 letter of interpretation explains that protection requires meeting all 1977.12 conditions and usually staying at the workplace: see Work refusal and OSH Act protections | 1983-07-11.

• Protected refusal typically requires an imminent danger and a reasonable belief that the work situation is life-threatening.
• The employee must have sought corrective action through employer or regulatory channels where feasible before quitting work.

Employees should raise safety concerns through the employer's reporting procedures or OSHA complaint channels while continuing to comply with valid safety rules, because 1977.22 does not protect refusal to follow rules and protected activity is preserved when complaints are made in good faith.

• Report the hazard in writing, document dates and whom you informed, and request corrective action.
• If the hazard is imminent and life-threatening, follow the criteria in 1977.12 before refusing to work.
• You can file an OSHA complaint; retain copies of communications as evidence of protected activity.

No. While 1977.22 states discipline solely for refusing appropriate safety rules is not ordinarily discriminatory, disciplinary actions that are actually retaliatory for protected activity (like reporting hazards) may still violate Section 11(c).

• Investigate the timing and motive behind discipline to determine if it was pretext for retaliation.
• If discipline follows a protected complaint, employees may have grounds for a Section 11(c) claim despite a cited rule refusal.

Yes, an employer can terminate an employee for refusing to follow valid safety rules if that refusal alone justifies termination under company policy and the rule is appropriate, as allowed by 1977.22.

• Ensure termination decisions are consistent with past practice and progressive discipline policies to reduce claims of pretext.
• If termination closely follows a protected safety complaint, it may be scrutinized for retaliation despite the employer's stated reason.

Intent matters: if disciplinary action is genuinely based on refusal to follow appropriate safety rules, 1977.22 generally permits it; but if the employer's real intent was to punish protected activity, the discipline could be unlawful under Section 11(c).

• Document objective evidence (rule violation, warnings, attendance at training) to support the employer's stated intent.
• If an employee alleges retaliation, OSHA will examine timing, prior complaints, and employer explanations.

OSHA's 1983 letter of interpretation explains that leaving the jobsite generally removes the narrow protections for a work refusal under 1977.12, and 1977.22 indicates refusal to comply with rules is not protected. See Work refusal and OSH Act protections | 1983-07-11.

• If an employee leaves the workplace, OSHA said the situation is typically not protected.
• Remaining on-site and following the steps in 1977.12 may preserve protection in extreme imminent-danger cases.

It depends: discipline for refusing a rule is permitted under 1977.22, but if the refusal was linked to a good-faith report of a hazard, the employee may have engaged in protected activity and discipline could be unlawful under Section 11(c).

• Employers should document how they responded to the employee's prior report and whether corrective steps were taken.
• Employees who reported the hazard should keep records (emails, complaints) to show protected activity if discipline follows.

Yes. Providing training and notice before enforcing new safety rules reduces disputes and supports enforcement actions under 1977.22, which permits discipline for refusal to comply with appropriate rules.

• Keep written records of who was trained, when, and what materials were used.
• Training demonstrates the rule was communicated and reasonably necessary for safety.

Supervisors should enforce the safety rule while documenting the employee's concern and investigating it promptly, because 1977.22 allows discipline for refusal but employees may still have protected complaints.

• Calmly explain the rule and require compliance unless the situation meets the narrow criteria of 1977.12 for a protected refusal.
• Document the employee's concern, any investigation steps taken, and corrective actions or reasons for no change.
• Offer the employee channels to file a formal complaint if they still believe a hazard exists.

No. Employees cannot use the OSH Act to avoid discipline simply because they disagree with appropriate safety rules; 1977.22 states refusal to comply with such rules is not protected by the Act.

• If an employee believes a rule is unsafe, they should report the concern through employer channels or to OSHA rather than refusing to comply.
• Refusal without meeting the narrow 1977.12 criteria risks discipline.