Federal court complaint procedures

A complainant may file a lawsuit in federal court if the Secretary has not issued a final decision within 180 days after the complainant filed the administrative complaint and there is no showing that the delay was caused by the complainant's bad faith. See 1989.114(a).

• The action is taken "at law or equity" for a de novo review in the appropriate United States district court.
• The federal court has jurisdiction without regard to the amount in controversy, and either party may demand a jury trial. See 1989.114(a).

The 180-day clock starts from the filing of the administrative complaint. See 1989.114(a).

• If a final decision by the Secretary has not been issued within those 180 days, the complainant may take the matter to federal court unless the delay is shown to be caused by the complainant's bad faith.

A federal court conducting a "de novo" review will consider the case anew rather than simply reviewing the agency's decision for errors. See 1989.114(a).

• This means the district court evaluates the evidence and legal claims afresh, subject to the legal burdens of proof that apply to the case (see 1989.114(b)).

The appropriate United States district court can hear the complainant's action; the statute grants district courts jurisdiction without regard to the amount in controversy. See 1989.114(a).

• The statute does not specify venue details beyond "appropriate district court," so normal federal venue rules would apply.

Yes — either party is entitled to a trial by jury in a federal action brought under 1989.114(a). See 1989.114(a).

• The right to a jury trial applies in the district court action that follows the administrative delay described in 1989.114(a).

If the delay in issuing the Secretary's final decision is shown to be due to the complainant's bad faith, the complainant may not bring the federal court action authorized by 1989.114(a). See 1989.114(a).

• The statute conditions the right to proceed to federal court on there being "no showing" that the delay was caused by the complainant's bad faith.

A federal court action under 1989.114(a) is governed by the same legal burdens of proof specified in 1989.109. See 1989.114(b).

• For the specific allocation and standards of proof, refer to 1989.109.

The specific burdens of proof are set out in 1989.109. See 1989.109 for the detailed legal standards that govern proceedings taken to federal court under 1989.114(a).

• Use 1989.109 as the controlling reference for how evidence and proof must be presented in a de novo federal proceeding.

Within seven days after filing a 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 administrative proceeding is pending, and must serve copies on specified officials. See 1989.114(c).

• The complaint copy must also 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 1989.114(c).

A "file-stamped complaint" is the complaint bearing the court's official filing stamp (showing the date and that the court accepted the filing), and that document must be filed with OSHA or the appropriate adjudicatory body and served on the listed officials within seven days. See 1989.114(c).

• The statute requires filing a copy of the court-stamped document (the file-stamped complaint) to provide official proof of the federal filing date.

You must serve the copy of the federal, file-stamped 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 1989.114(c).

• In addition, you must file the file-stamped complaint with OSHA, the ALJ, or the ARB depending on where the proceeding is pending. See 1989.114(c).

You should file the copy of the file-stamped complaint with OSHA, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), or the Administrative Review Board (ARB), depending on where the administrative proceeding is pending. See 1989.114(c).

• The correct filing location is determined by the current status of the administrative proceeding (e.g., pending before OSHA headquarters, an ALJ, or the ARB).

No — the federal district court has jurisdiction over an action under 1989.114(a) without regard to the amount in controversy. See 1989.114(a).

• The statute expressly removes any monetary-amount threshold for federal jurisdiction in these de novo proceedings.

For the overall framework, consult the main part for this topic at 1989, which includes 1989.114 and related provisions such as 1989.109 referenced for burdens of proof.

• Use 1989 as the starting point to review the full set of rules governing the administrative-to-federal-court transition and related procedures.