On April 19, 2023, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey granted the defendant-employer’s motion to dismiss a complaint seeking court enforcement of a preliminary reinstatement order after determining that the court lacked jurisdiction to enforce such orders. Gulden v. Exxon Mobil Corp., No. 22-cv-7418.
Background
OSHA’s new nationwide year-long pilot program that took effect on February 17, 2023, will aim to streamline the whistleblower complaint intake process.
OSHA, which administers over two dozen whistleblower statutes, has seen a rising number of whistleblower complaints filed in recent years. This pilot program aims to relieve the strain
On October 7, 2022, OSHA announced that it had ordered ExxonMobil Corp. to immediately rehire two computational scientists who alleged that they were fired in retaliation for leaking to the media their concerns about improper conduct by the company. In addition to reinstatement, the former employees were also awarded over
On June 21, 2021, OSHA’s much-anticipated Emergency Temporary Standard (“ETS”) on COVID-19 protections went into effect. While Proskauer’s Law and the Workplace blog covered the ETS in detail here, this post focuses on the anti-retaliation provision in the ETS.
Anti-Retaliation Provision
The ETS, which applies only to the health-care
In recent weeks, there have been numerous widely reported incidents of employees, particularly those in the health care industry, claiming that they have been retaliated against for reporting health and safety concerns related to COVID-19. Such complaints are indicative of the kinds of whistleblower and retaliation claims employers are likely
According to data released by OSHA, the number of whistleblower complaints filed under SOX and the Consumer Financial Protection Act (“CFPA”) declined in 2018. OSHA received 45 complaints under the CFPA in 2018 (down 50% from the 90 complaints received in 2017) and 155 complaints under SOX (down from the
The ARB recently affirmed a motion for summary decision against a Complainant claiming retaliatory discharge under SOX, finding that he failed to demonstrate that he engaged in protected activity and that the Company would have discharged him in the absence of any protected activity given his misconduct. Latigo v. ENI
On February 1, 2016, the Northern District of Indiana ruled in a case brought under the Federal Railroad Safety Act (FRSA) that whether a whistleblower has fulfilled relevant administrative requirements prior to filing suit is a “condition precedent” rather than a “jurisdictional requirement.” King v. Ind. Harbor Belt R.R., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43263 (N.D. Ind. Feb. 1, 2017).
Plaintiff, who was employed by the Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad (Company), filed a whistleblower retaliation claim under FRSA, a whistleblower protection statute that is similar in many respects to Section 806 of SOX. Like many other whistleblower protection statutes, the FRSA requires a whistleblower to file a complaint with OSHA within 180 days after the alleged retaliation occurred.
On January 13, 2017, OSHA published the Recommended Practices for Anti-Retaliation Programs. OSHA’s guidance provides examples and suggestions of steps companies can take to implement an effective anti-retaliation program. However, it does not interpret whistleblower statutes or create legal obligations.
OSHA recently released its final rule implementing the whistleblower provisions of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 (“CFPA”). The following are the key features of the rule: