Subpart C
Under 1980.114(a), a complainant may bring a lawsuit in federal district court if the Secretary has not issued a final decision within 180 days of the filing of the complaint and there is no showing that the delay was due to the complainant's bad faith. See 1980.114(a).
Under 1980.114(a), the district court has jurisdiction over the action without regard to the amount in controversy, so no minimum amount is required. See 1980.114(a).
Under 1980.114(a), a party to an action in district court shall be entitled to a trial by jury. See 1980.114(a).
Under 1980.114(a), 'de novo review' means the district court reviews the case anew rather than simply deferring to the administrative decision, so you present evidence and arguments in the court as if for the first time. See 1980.114(a).
Under 1980.114(a), you cannot file in district court if there is a showing that the delay was due to the bad faith of the complainant; that showing would prevent the 180-day rule from allowing a district court action. See 1980.114(a).
Under 1980.114(b), a district court proceeding brought under 1980.114(a) is governed by the same legal burdens of proof specified in 1980.109. See 1980.114(b).
Under 1980.114(b)(1), a prevailing employee can be reinstated with the same seniority status they would have had but for the retaliation. See 1980.114(b)(1).
Under 1980.114(b)(2), a prevailing employee is entitled to the amount of back pay, with interest. See 1980.114(b)(2).
Under 1980.114(b)(3), a prevailing employee can recover compensation for any special damages sustained as a result of the retaliation. See 1980.114(b)(3).
Under 1980.114(b)(4), a prevailing employee is entitled to litigation costs, expert witness fees, and reasonable attorney fees. See 1980.114(b)(4).
Under 1980.114(b), the statute lists specific remedies—reinstatement, back pay with interest, compensation for special damages, and litigation costs including attorney fees—but it does not list punitive damages among those enumerated remedies. See 1980.114(b).
Under 1980.114(c), within seven days after filing a complaint in federal court you must file with OSHA, the ALJ, or the ARB (as appropriate) a copy of the file-stamped complaint, and you must also serve a copy on the OSHA official who issued the findings and/or preliminary order, the Assistant Secretary, and the Associate Solicitor, Division of Fair Labor Standards, U.S. Department of Labor. See 1980.114(c).
Under 1980.114(c), the file-stamped complaint must be served on the OSHA official who issued the findings and/or preliminary order, the Assistant Secretary, and the Associate Solicitor, Division of Fair Labor Standards, U.S. Department of Labor. See 1980.114(c).
Under 1980.114(c), the deadline is within seven days after filing the complaint in federal court to file a copy of the file-stamped complaint with OSHA, the ALJ, or the ARB, depending on where the proceeding is pending. See 1980.114(c).
Under 1980.114(a) and (b), the district court's decision on relief is governed by the same legal burdens of proof specified in 1980.109, and a prevailing employee may obtain the remedies listed in 1980.114(b). See 1980.114(a).
Under 1980.114(a), the right to bring a district court action arises if the Secretary has not issued a final decision within 180 days and there is no showing of bad-faith delay; if the Secretary issues a final decision before 180 days, that 180-day trigger for filing in district court would not be met under 1980.114(a). See 1980.114(a).
Under 1980.114(b), the statute states that relief necessary to make the employee whole includes reinstatement with the same seniority status (1980.114(b)(1)), back pay with interest (1980.114(b)(2)), compensation for special damages (1980.114(b)(3)), and litigation costs including attorney fees (1980.114(b)(4)). See 1980.114(b).
Under 1980.114(b), the legal burdens of proof in a district court action are the same as those specified for the administrative process in 1980.109, so the burdens you must meet do not change. See 1980.114(b).
Under 1980.114(a), the action is to be brought in the appropriate district court of the United States and that court will have jurisdiction without regard to the amount in controversy; the statute does not impose an amount-based jurisdictional limit. See 1980.114(a) and the general part 1980.