Retaliation prohibitions overview

No person may discharge or otherwise retaliate against an employee for engaging in protected activities under 1978.102(a).

• This prohibition covers actions that affect an employee's compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.
• The protection applies whether the employee or a person acting at the employee's request engages in the protected activity (see 1978.102(a)).

Yes, both oral and written complaints are protected under 1978.102(b)(1).

• The regulation explicitly protects employees who "filed orally or in writing a complaint with an employer, government agency, or others" about violations of commercial motor vehicle safety or security rules.
• Protection also covers beginning a proceeding related to such a violation.

Yes, retaliating against an employee for testifying or for indicating they will testify in a proceeding is prohibited under 1978.102(b)(2).

• The rule protects testimony at any proceeding related to a violation of a commercial motor vehicle safety or security regulation, standard, or order.
• "Will testify" language means protection applies both to current testimony and to good-faith statements that the employee intends to testify.

Yes, an employee who refuses to operate a vehicle because the operation would violate a U.S. regulation, standard, or order related to commercial motor vehicle safety, health, or security is protected under 1978.102(c)(1)(i).

• The refusal must be based on a real violation of a governing regulation or standard.
• Protection covers actions by any person who would retaliate for that refusal (see 1978.102(c)).

A refusal to operate is protected when a reasonable person in the same situation would conclude the vehicle's hazardous condition creates a real danger of accident, injury, or serious health impairment, under 1978.102(c)(1)(ii) and 1978.102(f).

• The employee also must have asked the employer to correct the hazardous condition and been unable to obtain correction (see 1978.102(f)).
• The protection focuses on objective reasonableness given the circumstances confronting the employee.

An employee must show that a reasonable individual in the same circumstances would conclude there was a real danger of accident, injury, or serious health impairment, and that they sought correction from the employer and did not receive it, as required by 1978.102(f).

• Both elements are required: (1) objective reasonableness of the apprehension, and (2) prior request to the employer to correct the hazardous condition.
• If either element is missing, the refusal may not be protected under the standard.

Yes, accurately reporting hours on duty pursuant to Chapter 315 of Title 49 U.S.C. is a protected activity under 1978.102(c)(2).

• Protection applies where the employee reports hours accurately and is retaliated against for doing so.
• This protects truthful recording of hours even if the report reveals violations of hours-of-service rules.

Yes, cooperating with an investigation by the Secretary of Transportation, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or the National Transportation Safety Board is protected under 1978.102(c)(3).

• Protection covers cooperating in inquiries related to commercial motor vehicle safety or security.
• Retaliation for cooperation is explicitly listed as a violation in 1978.102(c).

Yes, furnishing information about the facts of an accident or incident involving injury, death, or property damage to federal, state, or local regulatory or law enforcement agencies is protected under 1978.102(c)(4).

• This protection applies when the information relates to commercial motor vehicle transportation.
• Retaliation for providing such information is prohibited by the regulation.

Yes, it is a violation to retaliate because the employer perceives that the employee engaged in or is about to engage in protected activities, as stated in 1978.102(e).

• That includes perceived filing of complaints (1978.102(e)(1)).
• It also covers perceived cooperation with investigations (1978.102(e)(2)) and perceived furnishing of information (1978.102(e)(3)).

The rule forbids many forms of retaliation, including intimidation, threats, restraint, coercion, blacklisting, discharge, discipline, harassment, suspension, demotion, or other adverse actions, as listed in 1978.102(b).

• The list is illustrative—retaliation "in any other manner" that affects employment terms is also prohibited.
• The protections apply when the employee or a person acting at the employee's request engages in protected activities (see 1978.102(b)).

The regulation protects "any employee," and it prohibits "any person" from retaliating, meaning employers and other persons may be held liable for prohibited actions under 1978.102.

• The text makes clear protection applies to employees and to actions taken by a person acting at the employee's request (see 1978.102(a)).
• Because it references "any person," liability is not limited to direct employers.

Yes, to qualify for protection for refusing to operate due to a hazardous condition, the employee must have sought correction from the employer and been unable to obtain it, as required by 1978.102(f).

• The request for correction should be a genuine attempt to have the employer fix the hazardous condition.
• Without that prior request and failure to obtain correction, the refusal may not be protected under 1978.102(c)(1).

The standard asks whether a reasonable individual in the same circumstances would conclude the hazardous condition creates a real danger of accident, injury, or serious health impairment, per 1978.102(f).

• The assessment is objective and context-specific: it depends on the facts confronting the employee at the time.
• The employee's subjective fear alone is not enough without objective reasonableness and a failed request for correction.

Yes, an employer may not retaliate because the employer perceives the employee "has filed or is about to file" a complaint, so being about to file is protected under 1978.102(e)(1).

• That protection prevents adverse actions taken based on the belief that an employee will file a complaint.
• The regulation is written to protect both actual filing and the imminent intent to file.

Yes, protection covers complaints filed with the employer as well as with government agencies or others, as stated in 1978.102(b)(1).

• Filing an internal complaint about commercial motor vehicle safety can trigger protections just like filing externally.
• The rule explicitly lists filing with an employer as a protected activity.

Yes, the regulation protects employees who "testified or will testify" in proceedings related to violations, so statements that the employee will testify are covered under 1978.102(b)(2).

• This prevents retaliation based on future testimony or the expectation of participation in a proceeding.
• Employers cannot lawfully retaliate because they anticipate the employee will be a witness.

No, penalizing an employee for accurately reporting hours that disclose hours-of-service violations is prohibited under 1978.102(c)(2).

• The protection is specifically for accurate reporting under Chapter 315 of Title 49 U.S.C.
• Retaliation for truthful reporting of required records or hours is a violation.

Yes, if a refusal to operate is not objectively reasonable under 1978.102(f) and the employee did not meet the requirement to seek correction, the refusal may not be protected and the employer may discipline the employee consistent with other applicable rules (1978.102(c)(1)).

• Protection is limited to refusals that meet the objective reasonableness test and the prior request-for-correction requirement.
• Discipline in these circumstances is not automatically barred by this regulation, but other laws or contracts might still apply.

Yes, furnishing information to the National Transportation Safety Board, the Secretary of Transportation, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or other regulatory or law enforcement agencies about an accident or incident is protected under 1978.102(c)(4).

• The protection applies when the information relates to commercial motor vehicle transportation and incidents involving injury, death, or property damage.
• Retaliation for providing such information is explicitly prohibited.