In April 2026, the U.S. Department of Labor filed a federal lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota against Stone Hill Excavation LLC and its successor entity Split Rock Sand & Gravel, marking one of the most significant OSHA whistleblower retaliation federal lawsuit termination after injury cases in recent construction industry history. At the center of the case is Javion Landry, a worker who suffered devastating second- and third-degree burns from scalding water released by a pressurized pipe — and was fired just two days after reporting those injuries. This case is a powerful reminder that injured workers have federal protections that operate entirely independently of state workers’ compensation systems.
What Happened to Javion Landry: The Incident That Sparked a Federal Case
In July 2024, Javion Landry was working on a construction site operated by Stone Hill Excavation LLC when a pressurized pipe released scalding water, causing severe second- and third-degree burns. Landry sent photographs of his facial burns to his supervisor, Spencer Schenk, documenting the seriousness of his injuries in real time. The response he received was not concern or support — it was a text message that has since become central to federal litigation. Schenk reportedly replied: “You don’t have any work restrictions from a doctor you can get your butt to work.”
Two days after reporting his injuries, Landry was terminated. According to the Department of Labor’s complaint, that termination constituted illegal retaliation under Section 11(c) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act — the federal statute that prohibits employers from retaliating against workers who report workplace injuries or safety hazards. This case exemplifies the kind of brazen employer conduct that federal whistleblower enforcement is specifically designed to stop, and it illustrates why an OSHA whistleblower retaliation federal lawsuit termination after injury can be a critical remedy for workers who are silenced after getting hurt.
OSHA Whistleblower Protections: A Federal Shield Independent of State Workers’ Comp
One of the most legally significant aspects of the Landry case is where it was filed: U.S. District Court — not a state workers’ compensation board. This distinction matters enormously for injured workers across the country. Under 29 U.S.C. § 660(c), the Occupational Safety and Health Act prohibits employers from discharging or retaliating against any employee who reports a work-related injury, files a complaint, or exercises any right under the Act. This protection is enforced directly by the Department of Labor through OSHA’s Whistleblower Protection Program, which currently administers anti-retaliation provisions under more than 25 federal statutes.
Many workers — and even some employers — mistakenly believe that filing a workers’ compensation claim is the only remedy available after a job injury. But the federal whistleblower framework creates a separate, parallel legal path. In most states, workers’ compensation is the “exclusive remedy” for workplace injuries, meaning injured employees generally cannot sue their employer in civil court for negligence. However, that exclusive remedy doctrine does not apply to federal retaliation claims. An OSHA whistleblower retaliation federal lawsuit termination after injury bypasses the state-level exclusive remedy barrier entirely, opening the door to damages that workers’ comp simply does not provide — including back wages, reinstatement, and punitive damages.
What the DOL Is Seeking: Reinstatement, Back Wages, and $100,000 in Punitive Damages
The Department of Labor’s lawsuit against Stone Hill Excavation and Split Rock Sand & Gravel seeks a comprehensive remedy package for Javion Landry. According to the complaint filed in April 2026, the DOL is pursuing three categories of relief: reinstatement to his former position, back wages covering the period since his unlawful termination, and $100,000 in punitive damages. That punitive damages figure is notable — it reflects the egregious nature of the alleged retaliation, specifically the documented text message dismissing Landry’s severe burn injuries and demanding he return to work without medical clearance.
The punitive damages component is especially significant for workers evaluating their options. Standard workers’ compensation benefits cover medical treatment and a portion of lost wages — they do not include compensation for the emotional harm of wrongful termination, the indignity of being fired for reporting a serious injury, or employer misconduct. A federal OSHA whistleblower retaliation federal lawsuit termination after injury can recover all of these. If you suffered a serious workplace injury and would like a preliminary estimate of what your damages might look like, a personal injury settlement calculator can help you understand the range of potential compensation before speaking with legal counsel.
Also worth noting: the businesses involved — controlled by Spencer Schenk — have been listed as delinquent with no annual reports filed, a corporate compliance failure that may affect how judgments are collected and whether successor liability applies to Split Rock Sand & Gravel. The DOL’s decision to name the successor entity is itself a signal of aggressive federal enforcement intent in 2026.
The Dual-Path Remedy: Workers’ Comp Benefits AND Federal Retaliation Damages
The Landry case crystallizes a legal strategy that injured construction workers and their advocates should understand clearly: the dual-path remedy. This means that a worker who suffers a job injury, reports it, and is subsequently terminated or punished can potentially pursue both a state workers’ compensation claim for medical and wage-loss benefits AND a federal OSHA whistleblower retaliation action for reinstatement, back pay, and punitive damages. These two claims are not mutually exclusive — they operate in parallel legal systems under different legal theories.
The table below summarizes key differences between the two remedies:
| Feature | State Workers’ Compensation | Federal OSHA Whistleblower Claim |
|---|---|---|
| Governing Law | State workers’ comp statute | 29 U.S.C. § 660(c) / OSH Act |
| Forum | State workers’ comp board | U.S. District Court (via DOL) |
| Medical Benefits | Yes | No (separate claim) |
| Lost Wage Replacement | Partial (typically 60–67%) | Full back pay available |
| Reinstatement | No | Yes |
| Punitive Damages | No | Yes (up to $100,000+) |
| Employer Fault Required | No (no-fault system) | Yes (retaliation must be proven) |
| Exclusive Remedy Limitation | Yes — bars most civil suits | No — federal claim bypasses this bar |
| Who Files the Claim | Injured worker directly | DOL/OSHA on worker’s behalf (or worker files complaint) |
| BLS Injury Data Relevance | Covers all recordable injuries | Specifically addresses retaliation for reporting |
According to Bureau of Labor Statistics injury and illness data, the construction sector consistently records among the highest rates of workplace injuries of any private industry, making the dual-path remedy framework especially relevant for construction workers navigating the aftermath of serious on-the-job accidents.
What This Means for Injured Construction Workers in 2026
The DOL’s April 2026 filing against Stone Hill Excavation and Split Rock Sand & Gravel sends a clear message to construction employers across the United States: firing an injured worker for reporting an injury is not a cost-effective business decision — it is a federal violation with serious financial consequences. OSHA’s Whistleblower Protection Program has been increasingly aggressive in 2026, and the Landry case represents the program functioning exactly as Congress intended it to function.
For injured workers, the practical takeaways are significant. First, document everything from the moment of injury — photographs, text messages, emails, and conversations. Landry’s case was strengthened in part by the photographic evidence of his burns and the text message from his supervisor. Second, report injuries through proper channels even if you are pressured not to. The act of reporting triggers federal protection. Third, if you are terminated, disciplined, demoted, or harassed following an injury report, you may have grounds for an OSHA whistleblower retaliation federal lawsuit termination after injury that runs parallel to any workers’ comp claim you file. In cases involving catastrophic harm — such as traumatic brain injuries from falling objects or equipment failures on construction sites — the stakes of pursuing every available remedy are especially high. Workers facing those circumstances can explore compensation ranges using a brain injury calculator as a starting reference point.
Finally, workers should understand that they do not need to file the federal retaliation lawsuit themselves. Under the OSH Act, a worker files a complaint with OSHA, which investigates and, if it finds merit, can file suit on the worker’s behalf in federal court — exactly what happened in the Landry case. The DOL became Landry’s advocate in federal court. That is a powerful form of enforcement that costs the worker nothing in legal fees to initiate.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I file both a workers’ comp claim and an OSHA whistleblower retaliation complaint after being fired for reporting a workplace injury?
Yes. These are two separate legal remedies under different legal frameworks. Your state workers’ compensation claim addresses your medical costs and lost wage replacement as an injured worker under state law. A federal OSHA whistleblower retaliation complaint — like the one filed by the DOL in the Landry case in April 2026 — addresses the unlawful act of firing or punishing you for reporting that injury. The exclusive remedy doctrine in state workers’ comp law does not bar a federal retaliation claim under the OSH Act. Pursuing both simultaneously is not only permitted but can significantly increase your total recovery.
How do I file an OSHA whistleblower retaliation complaint after being fired for a workplace injury?
Under Section 11(c) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, you must file a whistleblower retaliation complaint with OSHA within 30 days of the retaliatory action — meaning 30 days from the date of termination, demotion, or other adverse employment action. Filing is done directly with your regional OSHA office. OSHA will then investigate, and if it finds merit, the Department of Labor can file suit in federal court on your behalf, as it did in the Landry case. This process does not require you to hire an attorney to initiate, though legal counsel can be valuable throughout.
What damages can I recover in an OSHA whistleblower retaliation federal lawsuit after termination for reporting an injury?
An OSHA whistleblower retaliation federal lawsuit termination after injury can result in several categories of damages that state workers’ comp does not provide. These include: reinstatement to your previous job position, full back pay for wages lost since termination, compensatory damages for emotional distress and harm caused by the retaliation, and punitive damages designed to punish egregious employer conduct. In the Landry case, the DOL is seeking $100,000 in punitive damages alone, in addition to reinstatement and back wages. These remedies are in addition to any workers’ comp medical or wage-loss benefits you may separately receive.
What is successor liability and why does the DOL’s lawsuit name Split Rock Sand & Gravel alongside Stone Hill Excavation?
Successor liability is a legal doctrine that holds a new business entity responsible for the legal obligations and violations of a predecessor entity when there is substantial continuity between the two operations. In the April 2026 DOL lawsuit, Split Rock Sand & Gravel is named alongside Stone Hill Excavation LLC as a successor entity, meaning the DOL alleges it is the functional continuation of the same business owned by Spencer Schenk. Both companies were listed as delinquent with no annual reports filed. Naming the successor entity prevents employers from evading federal judgments simply by dissolving one company and operating under a new name.
Are OSHA whistleblower protections limited to workers who file formal OSHA complaints, or do they also cover workers who simply report a workplace injury internally?
Federal whistleblower protections under Section 11(c) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act cover a broad range of protected activity — not just formal OSHA complaint filings. Reporting a workplace injury to a supervisor or employer, reporting a safety hazard internally, refusing to perform work believed to pose imminent danger, and cooperating with OSHA investigations are all forms of protected activity. In the Landry case, his protected activity was reporting his second- and third-degree burn injuries — he did not need to file a formal OSHA complaint first to be protected. The act of reporting the injury itself triggered the federal anti-retaliation shield.
Legal Disclaimer: The content on this page is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice; for guidance specific to your situation, consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction.
Related reading: $56 Million Amazon Delivery Truck Verdict: Contractor Negligence, Vicarious Liability & Employer Safety Training Failures In Massachusetts 2026
Related reading: Medicaid Liens & Traumatic Brain Injury Settlement Deductions: How OBRA Reduces TBI Victim Recovery In 2026
Related reading: Heat Stroke Construction Injury Damages Calculator 2026: Third-Party Liability When General Contractors Fail OSHA Heat Safety Standards
Related reading: Roller Coaster Seatbelt Malfunction & Ejection TBI Liability: Legal Framework For Restraint System Failures & Amusement Park Negligence (2026)
David Prescott is a Workers Rights and Injury Specialist with extensive knowledge of personal injury law and settlement values across the United States. With years of experience analyzing workplace injury claims only cases, David helps injury victims understand their legal rights and the potential value of their claims. David is not an attorney and the information provided is for educational purposes only.