FEDERAL · 15 U.S.C. · Chapter SUBCHAPTER I—CONTROL OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES

Employee protection

15 U.S.C. § 2622
Title15Commerce and Trade
ChapterSUBCHAPTER I—CONTROL OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES

This text of 15 U.S.C. § 2622 (Employee protection) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
15 U.S.C. § 2622.

Text

(a)In general No employer may discharge any employee or otherwise discriminate against any employee with respect to the employee's compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because the employee (or any person acting pursuant to a request of the employee) has—
(1)commenced, caused to be commenced, or is about to commence or cause to be commenced a proceeding under this chapter;
(2)testified or is about to testify in any such proceeding; or
(3)assisted or participated or is about to assist or participate in any manner in such a proceeding or in any other action to carry out the purposes of this chapter.
(b)Remedy
(1)Any employee who believes that the employee has been discharged or otherwise discriminated against by any person in violation of subsection (a) of this s

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment
523 U.S. 83 (Supreme Court, 1998)
9,807 case citations
Federal Maritime Commission v. South Carolina State Ports Authority
535 U.S. 743 (Supreme Court, 2002)
438 case citations
Winters v. Houston Chronicle Publishing Co.
795 S.W.2d 723 (Texas Supreme Court, 1990)
213 case citations
Anderson v. United States Department of Labor
422 F.3d 1155 (Tenth Circuit, 2005)
106 case citations
Patricia D. Deubert and Sonya M. Deroche v. Gulf Federal Savings Bank
820 F.2d 754 (Fifth Circuit, 1987)
77 case citations
William Castle v. Eurofresh, Inc.
731 F.3d 901 (Ninth Circuit, 2013)
61 case citations
Willy v. Administrative Review Board
423 F.3d 483 (Fifth Circuit, 2005)
59 case citations
St. Regis Mohawk Tribe, New York v. William E. Brock, Secretary of Labor
769 F.2d 37 (Second Circuit, 1985)
47 case citations
In Re Donald J. Willy
831 F.2d 545 (Fifth Circuit, 1987)
46 case citations
Collette v. St. Luke's Roosevelt Hospital
132 F. Supp. 2d 256 (S.D. New York, 2001)
35 case citations
Swears v. R.M. Roach & Sons, Inc.
696 S.E.2d 1 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 2010)
26 case citations
Hugh Kaufman v. Thomas Perez
745 F.3d 521 (D.C. Circuit, 2014)
24 case citations
Bobreski v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
284 F. Supp. 2d 67 (District of Columbia, 2003)
18 case citations
Barbara Pogue v. United States Department of Labor Lynn Martin, Secretary
940 F.2d 1287 (Ninth Circuit, 1991)
15 case citations
Neal v. HONEYWELL INC.
995 F. Supp. 889 (N.D. Illinois, 1998)
12 case citations
Kounelis v. Sherrer
396 F. Supp. 2d 525 (D. New Jersey, 2005)
11 case citations

Source Credit

History

(Pub. L. 94–469, title I, §23, Oct. 11, 1976, 90 Stat. 2044; Pub. L. 98–620, title IV, §402(19), Nov. 8, 1984, 98 Stat. 3358; renumbered title I, Pub. L. 99–519, §3(c)(1), Oct. 22, 1986, 100 Stat. 2989.)

Editorial Notes

Editorial Notes

Amendments
1984—Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 98–620 struck out provision that civil actions brought under this subsection had to be heard and decided expeditiously.

Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries

Effective Date of 1984 Amendment
Amendment by Pub. L. 98–620 not applicable to cases pending on Nov. 8, 1984, see section 403 of Pub. L. 98–620, set out as an Effective Date note under section 1657 of Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure.

Effective Date
Section effective Jan. 1, 1977, see section 31 of Pub. L. 94–469, set out as a note under section 2601 of this title.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
15 U.S.C. § 2622, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/usc/15/2622.