District court retaliation complaints

A complainant can file in Federal district court if the Secretary has not issued a final decision within 180 days of the complaint filing and there is no showing the delay was caused by the complainant's bad faith. Under 1992.114(a), the complainant may bring an action at law or equity for de novo review in the appropriate United States district court once those conditions are met.

• Key points: the clock starts on the date the complaint is filed; the complainant must show there was no bad-faith delay by them; the district court action is available without regard to the amount in controversy. See 1992.114(a).

Under 1992.114(a), "de novo review" means the district court will decide the complaint anew without being bound by the Secretary's earlier findings because the case is tried from the beginning. The provision explicitly allows the complainant to bring an action "for de novo review" in district court if the Secretary has not issued a final decision within 180 days, so the court reviews the merits of the complaint independently rather than deferring to the agency's prior conclusions. See 1992.114(a).

• Practical effect: evidence and defenses are presented to the court just as if the case were filed originally there; parties should be prepared for a full trial record. See 1992.114(a).

No — under 1992.114(a) the district court has jurisdiction "without regard to the amount in controversy." The statute expressly removes any dollar-based jurisdictional limit, so the case may be heard in federal district court regardless of how much money is at issue. See 1992.114(a).

Yes — either party is entitled to a trial by jury in district court under 1992.114(a). The provision states that "Either party shall be entitled to a trial by jury," so claimants and respondents should be prepared to request and proceed to a jury trial if they choose. See 1992.114(a).

• Practical tip: file a timely jury demand according to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to preserve the right.

If the Secretary issues a final decision within 180 days, the 180-day trigger for filing a de novo action in district court does not occur under 1992.114(a). The rule allowing district court review specifically applies when the Secretary has not issued a final decision within 180 days, so an earlier final decision by the Secretary means the complainant cannot rely on the 180-day lack-of-decision provision to bring a de novo district court action. See 1992.114(a).

Under 1992.114(a), the complainant may only file in district court if there is no showing that the Secretary's delay was caused by the complainant's bad faith; if such a showing exists, the 180‑day remedy is not available. In practical terms, the presence of a credible showing (by the agency or respondent) that the complainant intentionally delayed or acted in bad faith can block the complainant from invoking the 180‑day rule to file in district court. See 1992.114(a).

• Practical action: keep prosecution of the administrative complaint timely and responsive to avoid any suggestion of bad-faith delay.

Under 1992.114(b), the complainant must file a copy of the file-stamped Federal court complaint with OSHA, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), or the Administrative Review Board (ARB), depending on where the administrative proceeding is pending, within seven days of the federal filing. The provision requires prompt notification to the administrative forum so the agency and adjudicators are aware of the parallel Federal court action. See 1992.114(b).

• Practical tip: include the court’s file stamp or docket number when filing the copy so the agency can confirm the federal filing date.

Under 1992.114(b), a copy of the Federal court 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. The rule requires service on these specific officials in addition to filing with OSHA/ALJ/ARB depending on where the proceeding is pending. See 1992.114(b).

• Practical step: verify the correct OSHA official contact and the Assistant Secretary/Associate Solicitor addresses to ensure proper service.

Under 1992.114(b), the copy of the Federal court complaint must be filed with OSHA, the ALJ, or the ARB depending on where the administrative proceeding is pending. If the matter is still with OSHA, file it with OSHA; if it is before an Administrative Law Judge, file it with that ALJ; and if it is before the Administrative Review Board, file it with the ARB. See 1992.114(b).

• Practical advice: confirm the current administrative status before filing so you send the copy to the correct office.

Filing the court complaint copy with OSHA (or the ALJ/ARB as appropriate) is required, but 1992.114(b) also requires that a copy be served on specific agency officials: the OSHA official who issued the findings and/or preliminary order, the Assistant Secretary, and the Associate Solicitor, Division of Fair Labor Standards. So both filing and service on those named officials are required within seven days of the Federal filing. See 1992.114(b).

• Checklist: (1) file with OSHA/ALJ/ARB, and (2) serve the OSHA official, the Assistant Secretary, and the Associate Solicitor.

Under 1992.114(a), the 180-day period begins on the date the complaint is filed. The provision says "within 180 days of the filing of the complaint," which means the clock runs from the complaint filing date for determining whether a district court de novo action is available. See 1992.114(a).

• Practical tip: keep accurate records of the complaint filing date to track the 180-day deadline.

Under 1992.114(a), the provision refers to "there is no showing that there has been delay due to the bad faith of the complainant," which means a showing of bad faith would prevent the 180-day trigger; in practice, the party asserting bad faith must present the showing. The statutory text requires absence of such a showing for the complainant to proceed to district court under the 180‑day rule, so an opposing party or the agency would be expected to produce evidence demonstrating bad-faith delay if they intend to block the district-court option. See 1992.114(a).

• Practical action: avoid conduct that could be characterized as dilatory and keep the administrative process moving if you want the 180‑day option preserved.

Under 1992.114, filing in district court does not automatically cancel the administrative proceeding; the complainant must still file the court complaint copy with OSHA, the ALJ, or the ARB as required by 1992.114(b). The rule contemplates parallel notification and preserves the necessity of informing the administrative forum when a federal suit is filed. See 1992.114(b).

• Practical note: because the statute requires filing and service on administrative officials, expect coordination between the court and the administrative docket rather than an automatic administrative termination. See 1992.114(b).

Under 1992.114(a), "appropriate district court of the United States" refers to the federal district court that has venue and authority to hear the case under ordinary federal venue rules; the statute grants district courts jurisdiction without regard to the amount in controversy, but the complainant should file in the district court that is proper under general venue principles. See 1992.114(a).

• Practical step: confirm venue rules (e.g., where the alleged retaliation occurred or where the parties reside) to choose the appropriate district court.

Immediately after filing in Federal court, a complainant should (1) obtain the file-stamped copy or docket number from the court, (2) file that copy with OSHA, the ALJ, or the ARB depending on where the administrative proceeding is pending, and (3) serve copies on the OSHA official who issued the findings and/or preliminary order, the Assistant Secretary, and the Associate Solicitor, Division of Fair Labor Standards — all within seven days as required by 1992.114(b). See 1992.114(b).

• Quick checklist: court file stamp/docket number, file with administrative forum, serve listed agency officials, keep proof of service.