Obligations and prohibited acts

Under 1983.102(a), an employer may not discharge or otherwise retaliate against an employee for engaging in protected activities. Employers may not intimidate, threaten, restrain, coerce, blacklist, discipline, or otherwise take adverse action affecting compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, as described in 1983.102(a) and the overall 1983 part.

• This prohibition applies to manufacturers, private labelers, distributors, and retailers covered by the part.
• The protection is triggered when the employee engages in the activities listed in 1983.102(b).

Under 1983.102, employees of a manufacturer, private labeler, distributor, or retailer are protected from retaliation when they engage in the listed activities. The protection applies to an employee of those entities as stated in 1983.102(a) and the part summary on 1983.

• If a worker is an employee of one of the covered entities, the protections apply; independent contractors are not explicitly covered by the term "employee" in this provision.

Under 1983.102(b), the rule protects four specific activities from retaliation: providing information about violations, testifying in proceedings, assisting or participating in proceedings, and objecting to or refusing to participate in activities the employee reasonably believes are violations. See the list in 1983.102(b).

• For details on each activity, see 1983.102(b)(1), 1983.102(b)(2), 1983.102(b)(3), and 1983.102(b)(4).

Yes — under 1983.102(b)(1), providing or being about to provide information to your employer, the Federal Government, or a State attorney general about a violation (or what you reasonably believe is a violation) is protected activity. See 1983.102(b)(1) and the general 1983 part.

• Protection covers disclosures made by the employee or by someone acting at the employee’s request.

Yes — under 1983.102(b)(2), testifying or being about to testify in a proceeding concerning a violation or suspected violation is protected from retaliation. See 1983.102(b)(2).

• "Proceeding" covers official matters related to enforcement of the Consumer Product Safety Act or other Acts enforced by the Commission.

Yes — under 1983.102(b)(3), assisting or participating (or being about to assist or participate) in a proceeding concerning a violation is protected from retaliation. See 1983.102(b)(3).

• This covers activities such as submitting evidence, giving statements, or helping a colleague who is involved in the matter.

Yes — under 1983.102(b)(4), an employee who objects to or refuses to participate in any activity, policy, practice, or assigned task that the employee reasonably believes is a violation is protected from retaliation. See 1983.102(b)(4).

• The protection hinges on the employee’s reasonable belief that the activity violates the Consumer Product Safety Act (as amended by CPSIA) or other Acts enforced by the Commission.

Under 1983.102, "reasonably believes" means the employee must have a belief that a violation is occurring or about to occur that a reasonable person in the same situation would hold; that reasonable-belief standard appears in protections such as 1983.102(b)(1) and 1983.102(b)(4).

• It does not require proof that a violation actually occurred, only that the employee’s belief was objectively reasonable based on the circumstances.

Yes — an employer can enforce legitimate, non-retaliatory discipline or performance rules so long as the action is not taken because the employee engaged in protected activity. Section 1983.102(a) prohibits retaliation, but does not prevent disciplining for legitimate reasons unrelated to protected complaints.

• To avoid claims, employers should document performance issues, apply policies consistently, and show the nondiscriminatory reason for any adverse action.

Yes — 1983.102(b) expressly protects actions taken by "any person acting pursuant to a request of the employee," so a third party who reports or assists at the employee’s request is covered. See 1983.102(b).

• This provision helps employees who ask outside counsel, consultants, or colleagues to report or provide information on their behalf.

Under 1983.102(a), examples of prohibited retaliation include discharge, intimidation, threats, restraint, coercion, blacklisting, and disciplining an employee with respect to compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment. See 1983.102(a).

• These examples are not exclusive; other adverse actions that affect employment terms can also be retaliation.

Yes — 1983.102(b)(1) protects employees who have provided, caused to be provided, or are about to provide information about violations, and 1983.102(b)(2) similarly protects those who testified or are about to testify. See 1983.102(b)(1) and 1983.102(b)(2).

• The "about to" language protects employees from preemptive retaliation intended to stop upcoming disclosures or testimony.

Under 1983.102, the protections apply to "employees of a manufacturer, private labeler, distributor, or retailer," so coverage depends on the worker’s employment relationship to those entities. If the temporary or contract worker is not legally an employee of the covered entity, they are not explicitly covered by this provision. See 1983.102(a).

• Organizations should review worker classification and, when in doubt, consult counsel because coverage can turn on employment status.

Under 1983.102(c), the protections do not apply when an employee, acting without direction from the employer (or the employer’s agent), deliberately causes a violation of a consumer product safety requirement or other law enforced by the Commission. See 1983.102(c).

• That means intentionally creating a violation to interfere with enforcement or for other deliberate purposes removes whistleblower protection.

An example that removes protection is when an employee intentionally tampers with a product or falsifies records, without employer direction, to create a nonconformity that can be cited as a violation; in that circumstance 1983.102(c) says the part does not apply. See 1983.102(c).

• The key factors are (1) deliberate action by the employee and (2) lack of direction from the employer or its agent.

Yes — an employer can reassign duties provided the reassignment is not a retaliatory change in the employee’s compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment. Section 1983.102(a) bars retaliatory actions, and 1983.102(b)(4) protects employees who refuse tasks they reasonably believe violate the law.

• Employers should document legitimate business reasons for any reassignment and avoid adverse changes in pay or status that could be seen as punishment.

Yes — 1983.102(b)(1) explicitly lists providing information to the attorney general of a State as a protected activity. See 1983.102(b)(1).

• This means disclosures to federal or state enforcement authorities are covered by the whistleblower protections in this part.

Yes — participating in or assisting with proceedings, including attending or helping outside work hours, is protected under 1983.102(b)(2) and 1983.102(b)(3).

• Protection covers activities whether they occur during work hours or after hours; retaliatory actions tied to such participation are prohibited.

Under 1983.102(b)(4), an employee is protected for objecting to or refusing to participate in activities they reasonably believe are violations of the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA) or other Acts enforced by the Commission, including orders or tasks that create a reasonable belief of legal noncompliance. See 1983.102(b)(4).

• The protection is tied to a reasonable belief of a violation; employees should document concerns and, when possible, raise the issue through internal channels before refusing a lawful order.

An employee should keep dated records of the protected activity (emails, reports, witnesses), any communications from the employer about discipline or reassignment, and notes about relevant conversations or actions. These records support a retaliation claim under 1983.102.

• Useful items include copies of reports to authorities, meeting notes, performance reviews that predate and postdate the protected activity, and names of witnesses.

Yes — reporting information about a suspected violation to the employer qualifies for protection under 1983.102(b)(1), which covers providing or causing to be provided information to the employer, the Federal Government, or a State attorney general. See 1983.102(b)(1).

• Internal reporting is a protected channel; employers should have clear procedures for receiving and addressing such reports to reduce risk of retaliation claims.

The procedures for handling retaliation complaints are contained in Part 1983, titled "Procedures for the Handling of Retaliation Complaints Under Section 219 of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008." See the Part overview at 1983 and the specific obligations and prohibited acts in 1983.102.

• For step-by-step complaint procedures, refer to other sections within Part 1983 that detail investigations, findings, and orders.