violations of paragraph (1) of this subsection and order all appropriate relief including rehiring or reinstatement of the employee to his former position with back pay.” OSHA, thus, does prohibit retaliatory discharges and establishes enforcement procedures encompassing a remedy there for. It does not, however, by its express terms prohibit a state from providing an aggrieved employee an alternative remedy. To the contrary, permitting an employee to pursue a state tort remedy is entirely consistent with the overall congressional intent of encouraging states to “assume the fullest responsibility for the administration and enforcement of their occupational safety and health laws____” 29 U.S.C. § 651(b)(11). See Cerracchio v. Alden Leeds Incorporated, 223 N.J.Super. 435 (App.Div.1988) (<HOLDING>). See Kilpatrick v. Delaware County Soc., 632
holding osha does not preclude an employee from pursuing a tort action for a retaliatory discharge recognizing retaliatory discharge tort implied by the workers compensation act recognizing the difference between statutory cause of action for retaliation and common law tort of retaliatory discharge recognizing the tort of retaliatory discharge holding that under pierce an employee in new jersey may maintain a private action in tort or contract for retaliatory discharge as a result of the filing of an osha complaint because such discharge contravenes our public policy