District court jurisdiction

A complainant can file a lawsuit in federal district court if the Secretary has not issued a final decision within 210 days of filing the complaint and there is no showing that the delay was caused by the complainant's bad faith. See 1988.114(a).

• The court action is a de novo review (the case is heard anew by the court).
• The district court will have jurisdiction regardless of the amount in controversy.
• Either party may request a jury trial and the court must try the case with a jury if requested. See 1988.114(a).

It means the federal district court can hear the retaliation lawsuit even if the monetary value at issue is small or nonexistent; there is no minimum dollar threshold for jurisdiction. See 1988.114(a).

• This provision removes the usual amount-in-controversy requirement that sometimes limits federal jurisdiction in civil cases.

A "de novo review" means the district court reviews the retaliation claim anew and does not defer to the Secretary's prior determinations. See 1988.114(a).

• Practically, evidence and legal issues are considered fresh by the court as if they were being heard for the first time.
• The complainant can present new evidence and arguments to the court that may not have been part of the administrative record.

A district court proceeding under 1988.114(a) is governed by the same legal burdens of proof specified in 1988.109. See 1988.114(b).

• This means the allocation of burden of proof between complainant and respondent in court follows the rules set out in 1988.109.
• Always consult 1988.109 for the specific elements and order of proof required.

Within seven days after filing the complaint in federal court, the complainant must file a copy of the file-stamped complaint with OSHA, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), or the Administrative Review Board (ARB), depending on where the proceeding is pending. See 1988.114(c).

• The copy filed must be the court-stamped (file-stamped) complaint showing the filing date.
• If the administrative proceeding is pending before an ALJ or the ARB, file the copy with that body; otherwise file with OSHA.

A copy of the filed 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 1988.114(c).

• Ensure service is timely and retains proof of service for the administrative record and the court.

If there is a showing that the delay in the Secretary issuing a final decision was due to the complainant's bad faith, the complainant may not bring the district court action under 1988.114(a). See 1988.114(a).

• The burden is on the party asserting bad faith to demonstrate the complainant caused the delay.
• Bad faith might include intentionally delaying administrative processes without justification, but specific facts will determine whether the standard is met.

Yes, at the request of either party the district court action shall be tried by the court with a jury. See 1988.114(a).

• If a party timely requests a jury, the court must conduct a jury trial unless the right is waived.
• Make the jury demand according to the federal court's procedural rules and deadlines.

1988.114 applies to retaliation complaints handled under Part 1988 procedures created for enforcement of Section 31307 of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21). See 1988 and 1988.114.

• These are MAP-21 related whistleblower retaliation complaints governed by Part 1988 procedures.

A "file-stamped complaint" is the copy of the complaint that the federal court stamps to show the date it was filed; it must be filed with OSHA within seven days to notify OSHA and the related administrative adjudicators that the complainant has invoked district court jurisdiction. See 1988.114(c).

• Filing the file-stamped complaint preserves the administrative record and ensures the agency and relevant officials are properly notified of the court action.

1988.114(c) requires filing the court complaint copy with OSHA, the ALJ, or the ARB depending on where the administrative proceeding is pending, but it does not automatically state the administrative proceeding's suspension or termination; filing notifies the administrative bodies and officials that the complainant has pursued judicial review. See 1988.114(c).

• Administrative procedures and any next steps may depend on the specific stage of the administrative process and applicable rules of the ALJ or ARB.

The complainant may bring a district court action if the Secretary has not issued a final decision within 210 days of filing the complaint, unless there is a showing of bad faith delay by the complainant. See 1988.114(a).

• Practically, the complainant should confirm the administrative file shows the 210-day lapse and there is no credible assertion that the complainant caused delay.

Beyond filing with OSHA or the relevant adjudicator, the complainant must serve the copy of the filed complaint 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 1988.114(c).

• Keep proof of service for each recipient to show compliance with the rule.

Yes, a complainant may file a federal court action if the conditions in 1988.114(a) are met (no final decision within 210 days and no bad faith delay), but the complainant must also file the file-stamped complaint with OSHA, the ALJ, or the ARB depending on where the proceeding is pending. See 1988.114(a) and 1988.114(c).

• Filing the court complaint while an administrative appeal is pending notifies the administrative forum and relevant officials of the judicial action.

No, under 1988.114(a) the district court conducts a de novo review, which means it does not have to defer to the Secretary's prior findings and evaluates the claim anew. See 1988.114(a).

• The court applies the legal burdens of proof set out in 1988.109 but independently assesses the evidence and law.