State plan discrimination provisions

Yes. A State Plan that implements its own occupational safety and health program under section 18 and parts 1902 and 1952 must include provisions "as effective as those of section 11(c)" to protect employees from discharge or other discrimination for exercising OSH Act rights (1977.23).

• Employers covered by an approved State Plan must follow the State’s anti‑discrimination rules that meet this effectiveness requirement.
• This means the State’s protections must provide remedies and procedures that, in practice, protect employees from retaliation at least as well as federal Section 11(c).

Yes. Having a State Plan does not remove the Secretary of Labor’s or federal courts’ jurisdiction over employee discrimination complaints; employees retain access to federal remedies (1977.23).

• OSHA may nevertheless refer complaints to the State agency when the employee is "adequately protected" by the State Plan, but the option to pursue federal remedies still exists.
• See also the general State Plan requirements in 1977 for context about how State Plans interact with federal jurisdiction.

The Secretary may refer complaints of employees who are "adequately protected" by State Plan provisions to the appropriate State agency (1977.23).

• Referral is discretionary and generally used when the State’s program provides protections and remedies comparable to federal Section 11(c).
• The Secretary’s decision to refer will follow the basic deferral principles in 1977.18.

"Adequately protected" is determined by comparing the State Plan’s anti‑discrimination provisions and enforcement procedures to federal Section 11(c) standards, using the deferral principles described in 1977.18 and the State Plan rules in 1902 and 1952 (1977.23).

• Key considerations include whether the State provides prompt, effective, and enforceable procedures and relief that are substantially equivalent to federal protections.
• The Secretary evaluates the State’s statute, administrative process, timeliness, remedies, and enforcement history consistent with 1977.18.

No. The State Plan’s provision does not have to use identical wording, but it must be "as effective as" federal Section 11(c) in protecting employees from discharge or discrimination (1977.23).

• Effectiveness is judged by outcomes and available remedies rather than literal phrasing; see the State Plan evaluation criteria in 1977.18.
• The State must also meet procedural requirements of 1902 and 1952 when implementing enforcement programs.

No. A referral to the State agency does not permanently divest federal jurisdiction; the Secretary still retains jurisdiction, and deferral decisions follow the principles in 1977.18 (1977.23).

• Referrals are administrative choices; OSHA may defer to a State’s findings when the State provides equivalent protection, but federal remedies remain available in appropriate circumstances.
• If an employee believes the State process failed to provide adequate relief, federal options may still be pursued.

An employer should follow the State Plan’s anti‑retaliation procedures and cooperate with the State agency, while recognizing that the employee may also file a federal complaint under Section 11(c) (1977.23).

• Ensure your internal investigations and corrective actions meet the State’s requirements that are "as effective as" federal protections.
• Keep records and document steps taken to address the complaint, because the Secretary of Labor or federal courts may still review the case if federal jurisdiction is invoked.

It depends on the specific State Plan’s procedures; 1977.23 does not guarantee faster relief and says only that State Plans must be "as effective as" Section 11(c) and that the Secretary may refer complaints to the State (1977.23).

• Timeliness is one factor in determining whether a State Plan is "adequate" under the deferral principles in 1977.18.
• If a State process is slow or fails to provide meaningful relief, an employee may still pursue federal remedies.

Parts 1902 and 1952 set the rules and procedures for State Plans; a State implementing a program under section 18 must satisfy those parts and also include anti‑discrimination provisions as effective as Section 11(c) (1977.23).

• 1902 describes the criteria and procedures for approval and administration of State Plans.
• 1952 concerns State Plan financial and cooperative aspects; together they frame how a State enforces workplace safety and anti‑retaliation protections.

Yes, different remedies are acceptable so long as the State’s remedies and procedures are effectively equivalent to federal Section 11(c) in protecting employees from discrimination (1977.23).

• The evaluation focuses on whether the State’s system delivers prompt, meaningful relief and enforces anti‑retaliation protections in practice, per the deferral principles in 1977.18.
• If the State’s remedies are inadequate in practice, OSHA may retain or exercise federal jurisdiction.

The Secretary of Labor (and OSHA) assesses whether a State Plan’s provisions are "as effective as" Section 11(c) when approving or evaluating State Plans and when deciding whether to refer complaints to the State agency (1977.23).

• That assessment relies on the criteria and deferral principles in 1977.18 and the State Plan requirements in 1902 and 1952.
• The Secretary can refer cases to the State when satisfied the protections and enforcement are adequate.

They may be protected, but protection depends on the specific refusal‑to‑work criteria; a work refusal is protected only when the conditions in the applicable refusal rules are met, and leaving the workplace can affect protection as explained in OSHA’s interpretation of refusal rights (see the 1983 Letter of Interpretation) (1977.23; Work refusal and OSH Act protections).

• OSHA’s 1983 interpretation notes that refusals are protected only under stringent conditions (referencing 1977.12 in that letter), and leaving the workplace may remove protection.
• If a State Plan covers refusal rights, the State’s rules must be "as effective as" federal protections; determination of adequacy follows 1977.18.

Yes. OSHA may defer to State agency findings when the State Plan’s protections and procedures meet the basic principles for deferral described in 1977.18, but the Secretary of Labor and federal courts still retain jurisdiction (1977.23).

• Deferral usually requires the State to provide prompt, full, and effective relief with fair procedures.
• OSHA’s decision to defer is case‑specific and based on the State’s demonstrated ability to enforce anti‑retaliation protections.

A State Plan can have different procedural rules, including filing deadlines, but those differences must not make the State’s protections less effective than federal Section 11(c); adequacy is evaluated under the standards in 1977.18 and the State Plan regulations in 1902 and 1952 (1977.23).

• If a longer deadline effectively delays relief or denies meaningful access to remedies, OSHA may determine the State protection is not adequate and retain federal jurisdiction.

Employees can file with OSHA or with the State agency; filing with OSHA does not automatically prevent referral to the State, and OSHA will evaluate whether the State provides adequate protection under the principles in 1977.18 (1977.23).

• If you want federal review, you may file with OSHA; OSHA may still refer the case to the State if it concludes the State offers comparable protection.
• For questions about specific State procedures, consult the State agency that runs the approved State Plan or OSHA regional office.