Subpart C
A complainant can file in federal district court if there is no final order of the Secretary, 210 days have passed since filing the complaint, and there is no showing that delay was caused by the complainant's bad faith. See 1982.114(a) for this rule.
No—the district court has jurisdiction without regard to the amount in controversy, so there is no minimum dollar threshold needed to bring the action. This is stated in 1982.114(a).
Yes—either party may request that the district court try the action with a jury. The statute says the action 'shall be tried by the court with a jury' at the request of either party, as set out in 1982.114(a).
The legal burdens of proof in a district court proceeding are the same as those specified in 1982.109. See 1982.114(b) and 1982.109 for the applicable standards.
An employee who prevails can obtain all relief necessary to make them whole, including reinstatement with the seniority they would have had but for the retaliation, back pay with interest, compensatory damages (including special damages), litigation costs, expert witness fees, and reasonable attorney fees. See 1982.114(b).
Yes—a court may award punitive damages, but the amount is capped at $250,000. This cap is specified in 1982.114(b).
Within 7 days of filing in federal court, the complainant must file a copy of the file-stamped complaint with the Assistant Secretary, the ALJ, or the ARB, depending on where the proceeding is pending. See 1982.114(c).
A copy of the 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 1982.114(c).
De novo review means the district court will consider the case anew and make its own findings and conclusions rather than simply reviewing the prior administrative decision. The right to a de novo action is provided in 1982.114(a).
If there is a final order of the Secretary before 210 days have passed, the condition in 1982.114(a) allowing a district court de novo action based on the 210‑day rule is not met, and the complainant cannot rely on that 210‑day trigger to file in district court. See 1982.114(a).
It requires that the complainant not have caused the delay by acting in bad faith; if the complainant's bad faith caused the delay, the 210‑day trigger to file in district court is not available. This limitation is stated in 1982.114(a).
Yes—reasonable litigation costs, including expert witness fees and reasonable attorney fees, may be awarded as part of the relief to make the employee whole. See 1982.114(b).
Reinstatement with the same seniority status means the employee should be returned to employment with the seniority they would have had if the retaliation had not occurred, restoring any lost seniority rights. This remedy is explicitly listed in 1982.114(b).
If the proceeding is pending before an ALJ, file the file-stamped federal court complaint with the ALJ within 7 days of filing in federal court, as required by 1982.114(c).
The regulation states the action may be brought in the 'appropriate district court of the United States' but does not further define 'appropriate' in the text; the rule itself is in 1982.114(a).
Yes—the court can award compensatory damages, including compensation for any special damages sustained as a result of the retaliation, under 1982.114(b).
Yes—the rule requires that in all cases a copy of the complaint also be served on the OSHA official who issued the findings and/or preliminary order, the Assistant Secretary, and the Associate Solicitor, regardless of other filings, as set out in 1982.114(c).
No—the district court proceeding is governed by the same legal burdens of proof specified in 1982.109, so the complainant must meet those burdens in court as well. See 1982.114(b) and 1982.109.
No—punitive damages are discretionary; the court may order punitive damages up to $250,000 but is not required to do so. This discretion is described in 1982.114(b).