Subpart A
Under 1988.102(a), employers may not discharge or otherwise retaliate against an employee for engaging in protected activities. The rule explicitly forbids actions such as intimidating, threatening, restraining, coercing, blacklisting, disciplining, or changing an employee’s compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment; see 1988.102(a).
Under 1988.102(b)(1), employees are protected if they provided, caused to be provided, or were about to provide information about a motor vehicle defect, noncompliance, or a violation of Chapter 301 reporting requirements. Protection covers disclosures made to the employer or to the Secretary of Transportation and applies when the employee has the employer’s knowledge; see 1988.102(b)(1).
Under 1988.102(b)(2), filing, causing to be filed, or being about to file a proceeding related to a motor vehicle defect, noncompliance, or reporting violation is protected activity. This protection applies when the filing is or would be with the employer’s knowledge; see 1988.102(b)(2).
Under 1988.102(b)(3), employees are protected from retaliation for testifying or being about to testify in proceedings concerning motor vehicle defects, noncompliance, or reporting violations. Employers cannot retaliate because the employee testified or planned to testify; see 1988.102(b)(3).
Under 1988.102(b)(4), employees are protected when they assisted, participated, or were about to assist or participate in proceedings related to motor vehicle defects, noncompliance, or reporting violations. Employers must not retaliate against employees for helping with or taking part in such proceedings; see 1988.102(b)(4).
Under 1988.102(b)(5), employees are protected if they object to or refuse to participate in any activity they reasonably believe violates Chapter 301 of Title 49 U.S.C., or related orders, rules, regulations, standards, or bans. Employers may not retaliate for a refusal or objection made on a reasonable belief of violation; see 1988.102(b)(5).
Under 1988.102(b), employees are protected when they provided, caused to be provided, filed, or caused to be filed information or proceedings related to motor vehicle defects or reporting violations. This explicitly includes causing another person to act on the employee’s behalf; see 1988.102(b)(1)–(2).
Under 1988.102(b), protection applies when an employee is about to provide information, file a proceeding, testify, or assist/participate in a proceeding; an employer may not retaliate because the employee was preparing or intending to take those actions. The specific subsections use the phrase “is about to” to capture preparatory activity; see 1988.102(b)(1)–(4).
Under 1988.102(b), the phrase “with any knowledge of the employer” means that protection applies when the employer knows, or is aware, that the employee provided or was about to provide information or file a proceeding. If the employer has knowledge of the protected activity, retaliatory actions for that activity are prohibited; see 1988.102(b)(1)–(2).
Under 1988.102, the protections apply to employees of motor vehicle manufacturers, part suppliers, and dealerships who engage in the listed protected activities related to motor vehicle defects, noncompliance, or reporting violations. These protections apply to those employees when their actions fall under the activities in paragraphs (b)(1)–(5); see 1988.102(a)–(b).
Under 1988.102(b)(1), an employer may not discipline an employee for providing or being about to provide information to the employer about a motor vehicle defect or noncompliance if the employer had knowledge of that reporting. Internal reports about defects are protected; see 1988.102(b)(1).
Under 1988.102(a), blacklisting an employee because they engaged in protected activities is a prohibited form of retaliation. Employers may not include blacklisting among the adverse actions they take against protected employees; see 1988.102(a).
Under 1988.102(b)(4), employees who assist or participate, or are about to assist or participate, in proceedings or reporting related to vehicle defects are protected from retaliation. Helping a coworker with a report or an investigation falls within that protected assistance; see 1988.102(b)(4).
Under 1988.102(b)(5), employees are protected when they object to or refuse to take part in activities they reasonably believe violate Chapter 301 or related rules, regardless of whether the belief ultimately proves correct; the key is that the belief is reasonable. Employers cannot retaliate for a reasonable objection; see 1988.102(b)(5).
Under 1988.102, the protections apply to an employee of a motor vehicle manufacturer, part supplier, or dealership. Whether a temporary or contract worker is an "employee" depends on their employment relationship; if they are legally an employee of one of those covered entities and engage in protected activities, they are protected from retaliation under this section; see 1988.102(a)–(b).
Under 1988.102(a), an employer may not take adverse action that is motivated by an employee’s protected activity; if the adverse action is because the employee engaged in protected reporting, it is unlawful retaliation even if the employer cites performance reasons. Employers must show a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason unrelated to the protected activity; see 1988.102(a).
Under 1988.102(a), employers are prohibited from changing an employee’s compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment as a form of retaliation for protected activities. Any adverse change tied to protected conduct may be unlawful; see 1988.102(a).
Under 1988.102(b)(1), employees who provide or are about to provide information to the Secretary of Transportation about motor vehicle defects or reporting violations are protected from employer retaliation, even if the employer disputes the report, provided the employer had or was put on notice of the activity; see 1988.102(b)(1).
Under 1988.102(a), conduct like threatening loss of job, pressuring employees not to report defects, forcing employees to sign waivers that limit reporting, or isolating or limiting duties because of protected activity can constitute coercion or restraint and is prohibited. Any action that deters or punishes protected activity may violate the section; see 1988.102(a).
Under 1988.102(b), protections for providing information or filing proceedings require that the activity be provided or caused to be provided “with any knowledge of the employer.” If the employer genuinely had no knowledge, retaliatory actions tied to unknown activity may not fall under those specific clauses; however, other protected activities (like objections or participation in proceedings) may still be protected when employer knowledge is established; see 1988.102(b).