Obligations and prohibited acts

Yes. An employee's act of providing information to a Federal agency about suspected public transportation safety or security violations is protected under 1982.102(a)(1)(i).

• The protection covers giving information, causing information to be provided, or otherwise assisting an investigation when the employee reasonably believes the conduct violates a Federal law, rule, or regulation relating to public transportation safety or security. See 1982.102(a)(1)(i)(A).

Yes. Sending information about safety or security concerns to a Member of Congress, a Committee of Congress, or the Government Accountability Office is a protected activity under 1982.102(a)(1)(i)(B).

• This protection applies when the employee reasonably believes the conduct concerns public transportation safety or security, or fraud, waste, or abuse of Federal funds related to those purposes.

Yes. Assisting a person with supervisory authority who has the power to investigate or correct misconduct is protected under 1982.102(a)(1)(i)(C).

• Protection applies whether the information is provided to outside agencies or to someone within the agency who can investigate, discover, or terminate the misconduct.

Yes. An employee who refuses to violate or assist in violating any Federal law, rule, or regulation related to public transportation safety or security is protected under 1982.102(a)(1)(ii).

• The protection covers both active refusal and refusal to help others break the rule.

Yes. Filing a complaint or causing a proceeding to be brought to enforce these protections, or testifying in such a proceeding, is protected under 1982.102(a)(1)(iii).

• This means employees may seek enforcement of the rule without fear of retaliation for that filing or testimony.

Yes. Cooperating with a safety or security investigation by the Secretary of Transportation, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or the National Transportation Safety Board is protected under 1982.102(a)(1)(iv).

• Cooperation includes giving statements or otherwise assisting those federal investigatory bodies.

Yes. Furnishing information to the Secretary of Transportation, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the National Transportation Safety Board, or any Federal, State, or local regulatory or law enforcement agency about facts relating to an accident or incident is protected under 1982.102(a)(1)(v).

• This protection covers accidents resulting in injury, death, or property damage connected with public transportation.

Yes. Reporting a hazardous safety or security condition is protected under 1982.102(a)(2)(i)(A).

• The report must be made in good faith to receive protection.

A refusal to work or to authorize use of safety- or security-related equipment is protected when the refusal is made in good faith, no reasonable alternative exists, a reasonable person would conclude the condition presents imminent danger of death or serious injury, urgency prevents correction without refusal, and the employee, where possible, has notified the agency and stated the intent not to continue unless corrected — see 1982.102(a)(2)(ii).

• The general rule is in 1982.102(a)(2)(i) and the detailed conditions are in 1982.102(a)(2)(ii).

You determine imminent danger by asking if a reasonable person in the same situation would conclude the hazard presents an immediate risk of death or serious injury and that there is not enough time to eliminate the danger except by refusing to work — see 1982.102(a)(2)(ii)(B).

• Both elements must be present: the hazard's severity (imminent danger) and the urgency (no time to fix it without refusing to work).

No. For transit security personnel, only the protection for reporting a hazardous safety or security condition in 1982.102(a)(2)(i)(A) applies; the refusal-to-work and refusal-to-authorize protections do not generally apply to security staff, per 1982.102(a)(2)(iii).

• Security personnel should still report hazardous conditions; other protections are limited.

Yes. Under the Federal Railroad Safety Act, providing information, causing information to be provided, or assisting in investigations about suspected railroad safety or security violations is protected under 1982.102(b)(1)(i).

• This protection also covers reporting gross fraud, waste, or abuse of Federal funds intended for railroad safety or security.

Yes. Notifying or attempting to notify the railroad carrier or the Secretary of Transportation of a work-related personal injury or illness is a protected activity under 1982.102(b)(1)(iv).

• This protection means employees should not be retaliated against for reporting workplace injuries or illnesses.

Yes. Cooperating with a safety or security investigation by the Secretary of Transportation, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or the National Transportation Safety Board is protected under 1982.102(b)(1)(v).

• Railroad employees who provide information or assist in those investigations are protected from retaliation.

Yes. Accurately reporting hours on duty pursuant to 49 U.S.C. chapter 211 is a protected activity under 1982.102(b)(1)(vii).

• Employees who truthfully report their hours cannot be retaliated against for doing so.

Yes. Reporting a hazardous safety or security condition in good faith is protected under 1982.102(b)(2)(i)(A).

• For refusals to work or to authorize use of equipment to be protected, the conditions in 1982.102(b)(2)(ii) must also be met (good faith, no reasonable alternative, imminent danger, urgency, and notice to carrier where possible).

Yes, where possible the employee must notify the carrier of the hazardous condition and their intention not to continue working or to authorize use of equipment unless it is corrected or repaired to be eligible for protection, as stated in 1982.102(b)(2)(ii)(C).

• Notification is required "where possible," recognizing that some urgent situations may not allow it.

No. A railroad carrier or covered person may not deny, delay, or interfere with medical or first aid treatment for an employee injured during the course of employment per 1982.102(b)(3)(i).

• If transportation to a hospital is requested, the railroad must promptly arrange transport to the nearest hospital that can provide safe and appropriate care, see 1982.102(b)(3).

Generally no. A railroad may not discipline or threaten to discipline an employee for requesting medical or first aid treatment or for following a treating physician's orders under 1982.102(b)(3)(ii).

• An exception exists when the carrier refuses to permit return to work based on Federal Railroad Administration medical fitness-for-duty standards or, if none apply, the carrier's own fitness-for-duty standards, per 1982.102(b)(3)(ii)(A).
• "Discipline" includes bringing charges, suspending, terminating, placing on probation, or making a reprimand note on the employee's record as defined in 1982.102(b)(3)(ii)(B).

No. For railroad security personnel, only the protection for reporting hazardous safety or security conditions applies; the broader refusal-to-work and refusal-to-authorize protections in paragraph (b)(2) do not apply to them, as stated in 1982.102(b)(2)(iii).

• Security staff are still protected when they report hazards in good faith.

Covered parties include public transportation agencies, their contractors and subcontractors, and their officers and employees for transit rules in 1982.102(a), and railroad carriers engaged in interstate or foreign commerce, their contractors and subcontractors, and their officers and employees for railroad rules in 1982.102(b).

• The rule protects employees from being discharged, demoted, suspended, reprimanded, or otherwise retaliated against (including intimidating, threatening, restraining, coercing, blacklisting, or disciplining) because of protected activities.

Yes. Protection applies not only when an employee actually engages in the protected activity but also when the employer perceives the employee has done or was about to do the protected action, under the general language of 1982.102(a)(1) and 1982.102(b)(1).

• That means retaliation based on mistaken belief that an employee reported or planned to report safety concerns can still violate the rule.