No — an employer may not discharge or otherwise discriminate against an employee for filing a complaint under or related to the Act. The rule explicitly protects employees who have "filed any complaint under or related to the Act," so disciplining someone for making such a complaint would violate 1977.3(a).
Yes — testifying, or even being about to testify, in a proceeding under the Act is protected. The rule covers employees who have "testified or is about to testify in any proceeding under the Act or related to the Act," and employers cannot lawfully retaliate for that testimony under 1977.3(c).
An employee has 30 days from the date the alleged discrimination occurs to file a complaint with the Secretary of Labor. The rule states that "any employee who believes that he has been discriminated against... may, within 30 days after such violation occurs, lodge a complaint with the Secretary of Labor alleging such violation" (1977.3).
The Secretary will cause an appropriate investigation to be made and, if a violation is found, may institute civil action to obtain relief. The standard says the Secretary "shall then cause appropriate investigation to be made" and may bring civil action in federal court to restrain violations and obtain remedies including reinstatement and back pay (1977.3).
The Secretary can seek court-ordered remedies such as restraining further violations, rehiring or reinstatement, and back pay. The rule specifically states civil action may be instituted to "restrain violations of section 11(c)(1) and to obtain other appropriate relief, including rehiring or reinstatement of the employee to his former position with back pay" (1977.3).
Section 11(c) expressly protects four activities: filing any complaint under or related to the Act; instituting or causing to be instituted any proceeding under or related to the Act; testifying or being about to testify in any proceeding under the Act; and exercising any right afforded by the Act on one’s own behalf or on behalf of others. These are set out in 1977.3(a)–(d).
No — a refusal to work is not automatically protected and is protected only when the specific conditions in the refusal-to-work rule are all met. The July 11, 1983 Letter of Interpretation explains that refusal-to-work protections apply only when the conditions in the applicable refusal-to-work provision are satisfied, and that those conditions are stringent (see the Work refusal and OSH Act protections Letter of Interpretation).
No — the Letter of Interpretation says leaving the workplace to file a complaint with OSHA will generally remove the employee from protected refusal-to-work activity. The letter explains that absent meeting the strict conditions for protection, "leaving the work place and being absent the remainder of your shift took you out of the realm of protected activity" (Work refusal and OSH Act protections Letter of Interpretation).
Yes — according to the 1983 Letter of Interpretation, if an employee stays at the workplace after advising the employer of a life‑threatening hazard and is then fired for refusing to expose themselves, that refusal would likely be protected, provided the other regulatory conditions are met. The letter states that under those facts "in all probability your work refusal would have been protected" (Work refusal and OSH Act protections Letter of Interpretation).
The text says any employee who believes he has been discriminated against may file a complaint, which covers employees asserting they were subject to discrimination; the provision is written to protect employees and does not limit filing strictly to current status. The standard states "Any employee who believes that he has been discriminated against... may... lodge a complaint with the Secretary of Labor" (1977.3).
Yes — if the Secretary's investigation finds a violation, the Secretary may institute civil action in an appropriate U.S. district court to restrain violations and obtain relief. The standard authorizes civil action to enforce Section 11(c) and obtain remedies such as reinstatement and back pay (1977.3).
Section 11(c) covers more than firing — it prohibits discharging "or in any manner discriminat[ing]" against employees for protected activity, which includes actions like pay cuts, demotions, or other adverse employment changes. The statute’s broad language protects against various forms of retaliation (1977.3).
The first step is to lodge a complaint with the Secretary of Labor within 30 days of the alleged violation. The rule instructs that any employee who believes they were discriminated against "may, within 30 days after such violation occurs, lodge a complaint with the Secretary of Labor alleging such violation" (1977.3).
Yes — the Secretary’s authority to seek civil remedies follows an investigation that determines Section 11(c) has been violated. The standard explains that "If, as a result of such investigation, the Secretary determines that the provisions of section 11(c) have been violated civil action may be instituted... to obtain other appropriate relief, including rehiring or reinstatement ... with back pay" (1977.3).
No — the Letter of Interpretation clarifies how refusal-to-work protections are applied but does not change the rights in Section 11(c); it explains that work‑refusal protection is limited and depends on meeting specific regulatory conditions. The letter states OSHA enforces the regulations as written and explains when a refusal to work would or would not be protected (Work refusal and OSH Act protections Letter of Interpretation).