McDaniel v. OSHA: Court Dismisses Retaliation Suit for Lack of Private Right

William McDaniel filed a civil action against the Occupational Safety and Health Administration in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The case arose from McDaniel’s belief that he had been terminated from his employment with the United States Postal Service after reporting unsafe workplace conditions. 

Filing of the Complaint and Initial Proceedings

William McDaniel filed the complaint on December 22, 2024. Acting without legal representation, he alleged that he had been wrongfully terminated from his position at the Dominick V. Daniels Processing and Distribution Center in Kearny, New Jersey. The complaint stated that the termination occurred after he reported unsafe workplace conditions. As relief, McDaniel requested that OSHA conduct a better investigation into the circumstances surrounding his termination.

Before the complaint proceeded, the court granted McDaniel permission to proceed in forma pauperis. This allowed the case to move forward without payment of the standard filing fees. After granting that request, the court directed the clerk to provide McDaniel with forms that would allow the United States Marshals Service to serve the complaint on OSHA.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 requires a plaintiff to serve the defendant with the complaint within ninety days of filing the case. The court instructed McDaniel to complete and return the service forms within thirty days so that the Marshals Service could carry out service of process. The court warned that failure to complete the forms or request an extension could lead to dismissal of the action.

McDaniel did not return the forms, and the complaint was not served within the required ninety-day period. Because service had not been completed, the court issued a notice advising McDaniel that the case could be dismissed unless proof of service or good cause was shown. McDaniel did not respond to the notice. On April 2, 2025, the court dismissed the complaint without prejudice due to failure to serve the defendant.

Motion to Vacate the Dismissal

On May 5, 2025, McDaniel filed a motion asking the court to vacate the dismissal and reinstate the complaint. He relied on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), which allows a court to grant relief from a prior judgment or order under certain circumstances.

McDaniel stated that he did not complete service because he believed the United States Marshals Service would automatically handle service of the complaint after the case was filed. He explained that his failure resulted from a lack of familiarity with federal court procedures. McDaniel characterized this misunderstanding as excusable neglect.

When considering requests for relief under Rule 60(b)(1), courts examine the total circumstances surrounding the delay. Relevant considerations include potential prejudice to the opposing party, the length of the delay, the reason for the delay, whether the delay was within the control of the party seeking relief, and whether the party acted in good faith.

The court reviewed these factors. It noted that McDaniel filed the motion to vacate thirty-one days after the dismissal order, which the court considered a reasonable period. The court also observed that OSHA had not entered an appearance and therefore had not experienced prejudice from the delay. The record did not show bad faith on McDaniel’s part. Because he appeared to misunderstand the procedural requirements while attempting to pursue the case, the court determined that the failure to serve the complaint constituted excusable neglect. The court therefore granted the motion to vacate the dismissal and reopened the case.

Screening of the Complaint

Although the court reopened the case, it then conducted a screening review of the complaint. Because McDaniel had been granted permission to proceed in forma pauperis, the court was required under federal law to evaluate whether the complaint stated a valid legal claim.

Under this review process, a court must dismiss any claim that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant that is immune from such relief. The legal standard applied during screening mirrors the standard used when evaluating a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

To proceed past this stage, a complaint must contain sufficient factual allegations that make the claim plausible. Courts evaluate whether the factual content allows a reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Although courts interpret filings from self-represented litigants more liberally, those litigants must still provide enough factual information to support a legal claim.

Allegations Concerning Workplace Safety Reports

McDaniel’s complaint stated that he reported threats and unsafe working conditions to supervisors on multiple occasions. He alleged that a manager terminated his employment after he filed workplace safety reports, including OSHA forms used to report unsafe or unhealthy conditions. According to the complaint, management told him that he had filed too many such reports.

The complaint focused on the circumstances surrounding his termination from the United States Postal Service. It described the alleged retaliation but did not identify any specific actions taken by OSHA itself. The court reviewed the allegations and interpreted them as asserting a claim that OSHA had some role in the retaliation.

OSHA’s Role Under Federal Law

The court then reviewed the statutory framework governing workplace safety complaints. Congress enacted the Occupational Safety and Health Act to promote safe and healthful working conditions across the nation. Among other provisions, the law prohibits employers from discriminating against employees who file complaints or participate in proceedings related to workplace safety.

Under the statute, employees who believe they were retaliated against for reporting safety issues may file a complaint with the Secretary of Labor. After investigating the complaint, the Secretary may bring an enforcement action in federal court if a violation is found.

The statute does not create a private right of action that allows individuals to sue directly under the law. Courts within the Third Circuit and other jurisdictions consistently interpreted the law to mean that enforcement responsibility rests with OSHA and the Department of Labor rather than private litigants.

Court’s Analysis of the Claim

After examining the allegations, the court concluded that the complaint did not state a valid claim against OSHA. The complaint did not contain factual allegations showing that OSHA participated in the employment decision that led to McDaniel’s termination. Instead, the allegations focused on actions taken by managers at the United States Postal Service.

The court also determined that the law governing OSHA retaliation claims does not permit private individuals to file lawsuits directly against OSHA. Because enforcement authority belongs to the Secretary of Labor, employees must pursue retaliation complaints through the administrative process established by the statute.

Based on this framework, the court concluded that McDaniel could not maintain a claim against OSHA in federal court. Even if the complaint were amended, the absence of a private right of action meant the claim could not proceed.

Final Ruling

The court granted McDaniel’s motion to vacate the earlier dismissal so the case could be reconsidered. After conducting the required screening review, the court dismissed the complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim.

OSHA Compliance Support

If your organization has questions about workplace safety regulations, compliance obligations, or responding to OSHA investigations, our team at Whitcomb Selinsky PC assists businesses navigating these matters. Contact us to learn how we help employers address safety compliance and regulatory requirements.