Listen to this post 7 min
AI-generated voice Open MP3

As temperatures begin to fall, employers often focus their winter safety efforts on obvious seasonal hazards such as snow, ice, and freezing outdoor conditions. A comprehensive winter safety program, however, can address a broader and sometimes counterintuitive range of hazards. 

Federal OSHA does not have a comprehensive standard devoted specifically to occupational exposure to cold. That does not mean winter hazards fall outside OSHA’s enforcement authority. Depending on the circumstances, OSHA may rely on the Occupational Safety and Health Act’s General Duty Clause or applicable standards governing walking-working surfaces, personal protective equipment, sanitation, and related hazards. 

Employers should conduct a job hazard analysis to evaluate hazards at their workplace during work tasks before winter arrives. 

Applicable Laws 

Section 5(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, commonly known as the General Duty Clause, requires an employer to furnish employment and a place of employment “free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm” to employees. See 29 U.S.C. § 654(a)(1). OSHA applies the General Duty Clause and cites employers for dangerous exposures to extreme cold or heat. Further, cold conditions may trigger enforcement under the personal protective equipment (e.g., requiring hand protection) standard and walking-working surfaces standard (prohibiting exposure to icy and slippery conditions).  

Recognizing Cold-Stress Conditions 

Employees working outdoors, in refrigerated areas, or in unheated facilities may face an increased risk of hypothermia, frostbite, and other cold-related injuries. The danger is not limited to subzero temperatures. Wind, moisture, inadequate clothing, fatigue, and the length of exposure can materially increase the risk.  

Employers should consider monitoring weather and wind-chill conditions, providing appropriate cold-weather clothing, making warming areas available, scheduling recovery breaks, and training employees and supervisors to recognize and respond to symptoms of cold stress. 

The appropriate controls will depend on the work, environmental conditions, duration of exposure, and employees’ level of physical exertion. Employers should document the hazards evaluated and the controls selected. 

Snow and Ice Create Walking-Working-Surface Hazards 

Slips and falls remain among the most common winter injuries. Snow, ice, slush, and water tracked indoors can affect parking lots, sidewalks, loading docks, ramps, stairs, entrances, trailers, and warehouse aisles. 

OSHA’s general-industry walking-working-surface standard, 29 C.F.R. § 1910.22, requires walking-working surfaces to be maintained in a clean and, to the extent feasible, dry condition. Employers must also inspect walking-working surfaces regularly and as necessary, and correct or repair hazardous conditions before employees use the affected surface again. If correction cannot be made immediately, the hazard must be guarded to prevent employee use until it is corrected. 

A winter inspection and maintenance program should therefore address: 

  • Prompt snow and ice removal 
  • Application of salt, sand, or other appropriate treatment 
  • Water and slush tracked into entrances 
  • Drainage and refreezing conditions 
  • Lighting in parking lots and pedestrian routes 
  • Slip-resistant footwear where indicated by a competent PPE hazard assessment 
  • Procedures for reporting and correcting newly developed icy conditions 

Employers should also account for employees who carry packages, tools, or equipment across slippery surfaces. A condition that may be manageable for an unencumbered pedestrian may present a substantially greater risk to an employee carrying a heavy or obstructive load. 

Wet and icy conditions can also affect the performance of powered industrial trucks (PITs) and other vehicles, which may necessitate a change to power equipment operations. 

Winter Clothing Can Create Indoor Heat Hazards 

A less obvious winter hazard arises when employees transition from cold outdoor environments into heated indoor workplaces without removing or adjusting insulated clothing. 

Heavy coats, waterproof garments, insulated coveralls, high-visibility winter apparel, and other protective equipment may retain metabolic heat and restrict the body’s ability to dissipate it. Employees performing lifting, carrying, order picking, material handling, maintenance, or other strenuous tasks may become overheated even though it is cold outside. 

This is particularly relevant in warehouses, distribution centers, manufacturing facilities, transportation terminals, and retail back rooms where employees repeatedly move between indoor and outdoor environments. The same worker may face cold stress on a loading dock and heat stress shortly afterward while performing demanding work inside. 

Employers should consider: 

  • Whether employees can safely remove unnecessary layers indoors 
  • The physical demands of indoor tasks 
  • Indoor temperature, humidity, airflow, and radiant heat 
  • Whether clothing or PPE impairs evaporative cooling 
  • Access to drinking water 
  • Recovery periods in an appropriate environment 
  • Training on early symptoms of heat illness 
  • Procedures for responding to possible heat emergencies 

In general industry, 29 C.F.R. § 1910.132(d) requires employers to assess the workplace to determine whether hazards are present, or are likely to be present, that necessitate PPE. A PPE hazard assessment should include the hazards introduced by proposed PPE. OSHA identifies this PPE hazard-assessment requirement as relevant to occupational heat hazards. 

The practical lesson is that winter PPE should not be evaluated only for whether it protects employees from cold. Employers should also consider whether the clothing creates additional strain when worn during strenuous indoor activity. 

OSHA’s Heat National Emphasis Program Applies Indoors and Outdoors 

Employers should not assume that OSHA’s heat enforcement efforts are relevant only during summer or only for outdoor operations. 

On April 10, 2026, OSHA issued an updated National Emphasis Program for Outdoor and Indoor Heat-Related Hazards, CPL 03-00-024. The program applies OSHA-wide and addresses heat-related hazards in general industry, construction, maritime, and agriculture. It establishes targeted enforcement procedures and reiterates OSHA’s compliance-assistance and outreach efforts. 

The revised NEP continues OSHA’s focus on identifying and reducing employee exposure to occupational heat-related illnesses and injuries. It also includes an appendix addressing the evaluation of employer heat programs and an appendix providing citation guidance. Many states have also created heat illness regulations, some of which apply to indoor work.

For winter operations, this makes task-based hazard assessment especially important. An employer should not rely exclusively on the outdoor temperature or the season. OSHA may examine the actual conditions experienced by employees, including indoor temperature, workload, clothing, PPE, access to water and recovery areas, acclimatization, training, and emergency-response procedures. 

Takeaways for Employers 

Employers should approach winter preparedness as a coordinated safety and health program. Evaluating environmental conditions, workload, clothing, walking surfaces, training, and emergency response together can help reduce injuries and place the employer in a stronger position during an OSHA inspection. If you need additional information about this or any safety topic, please feel free to contact us.  

Listen to this post 7 min
AI-generated voice Open MP3

By: Daniel I. Small, Robert S. Whitman, and Adam R. Young

Seyfarth Synopsis: The New York State Department of Labor has proposed regulations providing details on New York’s new workplace opioid antagonist (e.g., naloxone or Narcan) requirements, which take effect December 13, 2026.  The proposed regulations address the number and placement of opioid antagonists, employee training, maintenance requirements, and shared workplaces, while preserving the law’s existing coverage threshold.

As discussed in our prior alert and blog post, New York enacted a law in December 2025 requiring certain private employers to have an opioid antagonist, such as naloxone or Narcan, available for use in providing first aid or emergency treatment at the workplace.  A February 2026 amendment clarified the law and directed the New York State Department of Labor (“NYSDOL”), in coordination with the Department of Health, to issue implementing regulations.

The NYSDOL has now published proposed regulations addressing many of the implementation questions left open by the statute.  Most significantly, covered employers would need to determine a sufficient number and appropriate placement of opioid antagonists, ensure that at least one trained employee is always present during business hours, and establish procedures for inspecting and replacing supplies.  

The proposed regulations are subject to public comment through November 22, 2026, and may change before they are finalized.  The proposal provides that the regulations will become effective upon publication of a Notice of Adoption in the New York State Register.

Who Is Covered?

The proposed regulations do not materially change the law’s coverage threshold.  They apply only to private employers at workplaces where federal OSHA standards require first aid supplies to be readily available.  Specifically, the proposed rules define a covered “workplace” as a location where an employer is required under 29 C.F.R. § 1910.151 to have first aid supplies readily available for the treatment of injured employees.  Under that standard, the first-aid requirement applies when an infirmary, clinic, or hospital is not in “near proximity” to the worksite, which is often interpreted to mean a lack of emergency care available within 3-4 minutes for high hazard environments (e.g., construction, manufacturing) and up to 15 minutes for office and low-hazard environments.  Accordingly, coverage remains worksite-specific and will not necessarily extend to every New York location operated by an employer.

What Do the Proposed Regulations Require?

  • Number of Opioid Antagonists.  The proposal does not establish a fixed number of doses or employee-to-dose ratio.  Instead, employers would need to maintain a “sufficient number” to enable a quick response to a suspected overdose.  Employers should consider the size and physical layout of the workplace; the number of persons working at or otherwise accessing it for work-related purposes; whether higher-risk populations access the workplace; the nature of the work and associated overdose risk; and any history of suspected overdoses.  
  • Placement and Accessibility.  Opioid antagonists would need to be kept in easily accessible locations, and employers would be required to communicate those locations to employees.  In determining placement, employers should consider existing AED and first aid locations, workplace layout and access restrictions, visibility and centrality, and security or tampering concerns.  The proposal generally discourages keeping the primary supply in a locked or restricted location unless justified by a reasonable security or safety concern and quick access can otherwise be ensured.
  • Employee Training.  The effective use of opioid antagonists depends in part on employees recognizing when they may be needed and safely responding to a suspected overdose.  Employers should also consider applicable OSHA requirements concerning employee protection, including appropriate PPE and training, where employees may encounter hazardous substances while responding to an overdose.  Against that backdrop, the proposed regulations impose specific training requirements for covered employers.  Although employers would not need to train every employee, they would be required to ensure that at least one employee who has completed opioid-antagonist training is always present in the workplace during business hours.  Training must be consistent with materials made available by a department of health in New York State and should address recognizing an opioid overdose, administering the medication, steps before and after administration, including contacting first responders, and applicable Good Samaritan protections.  Employers would also be encouraged to recruit employee volunteers for training.  For workplaces operating extended hours or multiple shifts, this requirement may require additional planning to ensure continuous trained coverage.
  • Inspection, Replacement, and Storage.  Employers would need to regularly inspect their supply and replace expired, tampered-with, removed, or missing medication as soon as they know, or should know, that replacement is necessary.  Used doses should be replaced as soon as possible, and expired or used medication must be properly disposed of.  The proposal does not specify an inspection frequency.  Opioid antagonists also would need to remain sealed in their original packaging and be stored with the manufacturer’s instructions, or specified government-issued instructions if the manufacturer’s instructions are unavailable.
  • Shared Workplaces.  Employers sharing a workplace could jointly satisfy the requirements, provided they memorialize their arrangement in a written plan that is made available to NYSDOL upon request.  Otherwise, the proposal does not impose separate reporting or recordkeeping requirements.

Enforcement and Liability Considerations

Once effective, the new requirements may carry both enforcement and litigation implications.  Covered employers that fail to comply may face enforcement by NYSDOL.  The statute also provides that administering an opioid antagonist pursuant to Labor Law § 27-f constitutes first aid or emergency treatment for purposes of New York’s Good Samaritan law.  Employers nevertheless should be mindful that noncompliance with requirements governing the availability, placement, maintenance, and training associated with opioid antagonists could create additional litigation risk following a workplace overdose or emergency response.

Practical Implications for Employers

With the law’s December effective date approaching, employers should consider taking the following steps:

  • Confirm Coverage.  Determine on a worksite-by-worksite basis whether the employer is required under 29 C.F.R. § 1910.151 to maintain first aid supplies.
  • Assess Quantity and Placement.  For covered workplaces, determine an appropriate quantity and identify easily accessible locations based on NYSDOL’s proposed factors.
  • Plan for Training and Maintenance.  Identify employees for training and ensure sufficient coverage to have at least one trained employee present during business hours.  Employers should also assign responsibility for inspections, expiration monitoring, replacement, and disposal.
  • Consider Shared-Workplace Arrangements.  Where applicable, determine whether joint compliance makes sense and document the arrangement.

These steps may need to be adjusted once NYSDOL issues final regulations.  Given the short period between the close of the comment period and the law’s December effective date, potentially covered employers should begin assessing coverage and preparing for compliance rather than waiting for the final regulations.

We will continue to monitor developments and provide updates as appropriate.

Listen to this post 8 min
AI-generated voice Open MP3

Seyfarth Synopsis: Cal/OSHA has commenced formal rulemaking to implement Senate Bill 606’s Egregious and Enterprise-wide violation classifications. Although SB 606 has been in effect for several years, the proposed regulations provide important details regarding when these classifications may apply and, critically, how penalties would be calculated. Under the proposal, an Egregious violation could result in a separate citation and penalty for each employee exposed, while an Enterprise-wide violation could result in penalties multiplied across covered worksites. Cal/OSHA estimates that approximately 14 businesses per year may receive citations fitting the proposed classifications, but the potential consequences for an individual employer, particularly one with numerous California locations, could be substantial. Written comments are due November 30, 2026, and a public hearing is scheduled for December 3, 2026.

California employers now have their clearest picture yet of how Cal/OSHA intends to implement two significant enforcement tools created by SB 606: Egregious and Enterprise-wide violations.

As we previously wrote when Governor Newsom signed SB 606 in 2021, the legislation created the Egregious and Enterprise-wide violation classifications and significantly expanded Cal/OSHA’s enforcement authority. In 2024, we reported that Cal/OSHA had begun the rulemaking process needed to incorporate those classifications into California’s existing citation and penalty framework.

Now, that process has moved forward. Cal/OSHA has released proposed regulatory language that provides important details about how it intends to determine when a violation is Egregious or Enterprise-wide and how it would calculate the resulting penalties.

When Could a Violation Be Egregious?

Under proposed Section 334, an Egregious violation must first qualify as Willful. A Willful violation generally involves an employer intentionally and knowingly violating a safety requirement, or being aware that a hazardous condition exists and making no reasonable effort to eliminate it.

A Willful violation could then be classified as Egregious if additional specified circumstances are present. Under the proposed rule, those circumstances include:

one or more final Repeat, Willful, or Egregious violations within the preceding five years;

  • five or more final Serious violations within the preceding five years;
  • ten or more final General or Regulatory violations within the preceding five years;
  • intentional disregard of health and safety responsibilities;
  • conduct demonstrating clear bad faith in carrying out occupational safety and health responsibilities; or
  • the underlying Willful violation or prior violations causing a worker fatality, five or more occupational injuries or illnesses, or a catastrophe (three or more employees hospitalized); or an employer experience modifier above 125 percent.

In practical terms, this means an employer’s broader enforcement history and safety practices could become important in determining whether a Willful violation is elevated to Egregious.

Why Does the Egregious Classification Matter?

The biggest difference is how penalties could multiply.

For an Egregious violation, proposed Section 336 would require Cal/OSHA to issue a separate citation and separate proposed penalty for each employee exposed. The proposed regulation gives a simple example: if ten employees were exposed to an Egregious violation, Cal/OSHA would issue ten separate citations and assess ten separate penalties. This means a violation that otherwise would result in a $10,000 penalty could result in $100,000 in proposed penalties if ten employees were exposed and the Egregious classification applied.

What Is an Enterprise-Wide Violation?

Enterprise-wide violations present a particularly significant risk for employers operating multiple California locations. Under proposed Section 334, a rebuttable presumption of an Enterprise-wide violation could arise where an employer has employees at multiple worksites in California and either:

  • a written policy or procedure applicable to more than one worksite violates an applicable safety or health requirement; or
  • Cal/OSHA has evidence of a pattern or practice of the same violation or violations involving more than one worksite.

Both paths are important.

The first means an alleged issue in a company-wide written safety program or procedure could potentially extend beyond the location where Cal/OSHA initially identifies the problem.

The second creates a different risk. During an inspection, Cal/OSHA may obtain information suggesting that the same compliance issue exists at other worksites, for example through records or other evidence showing similar violations at more than one location. If that evidence establishes what Cal/OSHA believes to be a pattern or practice of the same violation or violations across multiple worksites, it could support the presumption of an Enterprise-wide violation.

The practical impact is that an employer could face an Enterprise-wide citation covering multiple worksites even though Cal/OSHA did not conduct a separate inspection at every covered location. And because the proposed penalty for an Enterprise-wide violation would be multiplied by the number of worksites covered by the citation, evidence that the same problem exists elsewhere can materially increase the scope and potential penalty exposure of the inspection.

Written Safety Programs Deserve Particular Attention

The written-program pathway is particularly significant for employers that use standardized safety programs across multiple California facilities.

Employers commonly use standardized Injury and Illness Prevention Programs (IIPPs), Workplace Violence Prevention Plans (WVPPs), and Heat Illness Prevention Plans (HIPPs) across California worksites. Cal/OSHA used citations involving these programs as proxies in estimating the impact of Enterprise-wide citations. Standardization promotes consistency, but it can also magnify risk: a deficiency in a written program used across multiple worksites could support an Enterprise-wide citation. Employers should therefore consider reviewing California safety programs that have been rolled out across multiple locations.

Cal/OSHA Estimates Limited Use, But Potentially Significant Consequences

How often will this actually happen?

In the economic analysis accompanying the proposal, Cal/OSHA estimates that approximately 14 businesses per year may receive citations fitting the proposed Egregious or Enterprise-wide classifications. Cal/OSHA also estimates approximately $1.18 million in additional annual penalties statewide, with most of the modeled increase attributable to Egregious violations.

Those estimates suggest that the classifications may not arise in the typical Cal/OSHA inspection. But employers should not mistake relatively infrequent use for insignificant risk. When the classifications do apply, the proposed rules allow penalties to multiply based on employees for Egregious violations and worksites for Enterprise-wide violations. For a large employer, those multipliers can make an individual enforcement matter significantly more consequential.

What Should California Employers Do Now?

The proposed regulations are not final, and the language may change through the rulemaking process. But employers do not need to wait for a final rule to consider the practical implications.

Multi-site employers in particular should consider reviewing written safety programs and procedures that apply across California operations, including IIPPs, Workplace Violence Prevention Plans, Heat Illness Prevention Plans, and other standardized policies. A key question is whether a problem identified in a written program at one site is also present in the version used elsewhere.

Employers should also consider how they identify and respond to recurring safety issues. Where similar findings arise at different California locations, addressing each matter in isolation may miss a broader issue that could become relevant to an Enterprise-wide analysis.

Finally, the proposed Egregious criteria make citation history increasingly important. Employers should understand their California enforcement history and consider whether prior final violations may become relevant if Cal/OSHA later alleges a Willful violation. This also underscores the importance of carefully evaluating citations when they are issued, and appealing and defending citations where defenses exist.

What Happens Next?

Written comments on the proposed regulations are due November 30, 2026. Cal/OSHA will hold a public hearing on December 3, 2026, from 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., with both in-person and remote participation available. The proposed language may be modified as the rulemaking proceeds.

Listen to this post 4 min
AI-generated voice Open MP3

Seyfarth Synopsis: The California Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board has approved significant revisions to California’s workplace first aid requirements for both construction and general industry. For general industry employers, the most notable change is the elimination of the longstanding requirement that first aid kit contents be approved by a consulting physician. Instead, employers may now comply by providing a first aid kit meeting ANSI/ISEA Z308.1-2021 Class A requirements. The amendments should simplify compliance, but employers should not overlook a key aspect of the new rule: the obligation to evaluate workplace-specific hazards and provide additional first aid supplies where reasonably necessary. Assuming approval by the Office of Administrative Law, the amendments are expected to become effective on January 1, 2027.

Background

The California Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board has approved long-awaited revisions to California’s workplace first aid requirements. The amendments to sections 1512 (construction) and 3400 (general industry) modernize California’s approach to workplace first aid kits and provide employers with a more flexible path to compliance. The rulemaking now proceeds to the Office of Administrative Law for review and, if approved, is expected to become effective on January 1, 2027.

The Biggest Change for General Industry Employers

The most significant practical change affects general industry employers. Historically, section 3400 required first aid materials to be approved by a consulting physician. This resulted in many employers facing citation not because their first aid kits were inadequate, but because they didn’t have an approval letter. The revised regulation replaces that framework with a simpler alternative. Employers may now either:

(1) Provide a first aid kit that complies with ANSI/ISEA Z308.1-2021 Class A workplace first aid kit requirements; or

(2) have the contents determined by an employer-authorized licensed physician or other licensed health care professional (PLHCP).

The Rule Is About More Than First Aid Kits

The amendments also require employers to:

  • Evaluate the number of first aid kits needed based on employee locations and workplace hazards.
  • Ensure first aid kits are readily available.
  • Communicate first aid kit locations to employees.
  • Clearly identify kit locations where practicable.
  • Inspect and replenish first aid supplies as necessary.

Employers should therefore view this as a broader first aid program update, not simply a change to first aid kit contents.

The Hazard Assessment Requirement

The amended standards require employers to provide additional specialized first aid items when a hazard assessment identifies workplace hazards that are unique, reasonably anticipated; and potentially serious. As a result, an ANSI-compliant Class A kit may satisfy the baseline requirement, but it may not be sufficient for every workplace.

The Board specifically rejected proposals to require items such as naloxone or epinephrine in all workplaces, instead concluding that such issues should be addressed through the hazard assessment process. Employers should therefore consider whether their operations involve chemical, electrical, thermal, remote-work, or other unique hazards that warrant additional supplies.

What Employers Should Do Now

Assuming OAL approval, employers should begin reviewing their first aid programs before the anticipated January 1, 2027 effective date.

Key questions include:

  • Do existing first aid kits satisfy ANSI/ISEA Z308.1-2021 Class A requirements?
  • Are first aid kit locations adequately communicated and identified?
  • Is there a process for inspecting and replenishing supplies?
  • Has the employer evaluated whether workplace-specific hazards require additional first aid items?

If you have questions regarding the new requirements or would like assistance evaluating your first aid program before the anticipated January 1, 2027 effective date, contact your favorite Seyfarth workplace safety and health attorney.

Listen to this post 5 min
AI-generated voice Open MP3

Seyfarth Synopsis: On August 14, 2026, Cal/OSHA released a revised discussion draft of proposed changes to California’s heat illness prevention standards, Section 3395 (Outdoor Heat Illness Prevention) and Section 3396 (Indoor Heat Illness Prevention). The proposal continues Cal/OSHA’s effort to implement Assembly Bill 2243 while making California’s indoor and outdoor heat standards more consistent in structure and terminology. Although many of the revisions are intended to harmonize the two standards, the draft also contains substantive changes that could significantly affect compliance obligations, including an expansion of outdoor high-heat procedures and new acclimatization requirements for newly-assigned and returning employees. Comments on the discussion draft are due September 21, 2026.

Background

As we previously discussed, Cal/OSHA released proposed revisions to California’s heat illness prevention regulations in May 2025 as part of its effort to implement Assembly Bill 2243. Among other things, the AB 2243 directed Cal/OSHA to consider revisions relating to heat illness prevention plans and acclimatization requirements. Although AB 2243 focused primarily on the outdoor heat standard, Cal/OSHA elected to review both the outdoor and indoor regulations. Following stakeholder comments and advisory committee discussions, Cal/OSHA released a substantially revised draft on August 14, 2026.

Expansion of Outdoor High-Heat Procedures

Perhaps the most consequential proposal in the August draft is the elimination of an existing limitation on Section 3395’s outdoor high-heat procedures, which currently limits the provisions to employers in specified industries, including agriculture, construction, landscaping, oil and gas extraction, and certain transportation operations. The August proposal would remove that industry-based limitation, extending high-heat requirements to a much broader range of outdoor employers whenever temperatures reach 95 degrees Fahrenheit. For employers previously not subject to California’s high-heat requirements, this change could have a significant practical impact.

Expanded Acclimatization Requirements

The August proposal adds more well-defined acclimatization requirements. Under California’s current regulations, employers must closely observe newly assigned employees during specified periods of elevated heat exposure. The August draft would retain and expand concepts first introduced in the May 2025 proposal by addressing both newly assigned employees and employees returning to work after an absence exceeding fourteen days.

Under the proposal, employers would have two options when assigning unacclimatized employees to covered heat conditions. Employers could either implement enhanced protective measures and close observation procedures or phase employees into heat exposure through prescribed exposure schedules. The proposed changes mirror acclimatization provisions in Oregon’s heat illness rule as well as federal OSHA’s proposed heat illness rule.

Although the precise details may continue to evolve during the rulemaking process, the broader message from Cal/OSHA is clear: employers should anticipate greater scrutiny of acclimatization practices.

Distribution of Heat Illness Prevention Plans

The August draft retains one of the most notable additions from the May 2025 proposal: affirmative requirements for distributing Heat Illness Prevention Plans (HIPPs).

Under the proposed language, employers would be required to distribute HIPPs to employees upon hire, during heat illness prevention training, and at least once annually. The proposal clarifies that employers would not be required to distribute the plan to the same employee more than twice each year and would permit electronic posting and distribution in certain circumstances.

Increased Focus on Heat Illness Recognition

The August draft also continues Cal/OSHA’s effort to align definitions and terminology between the indoor and outdoor standards. Among other changes, the proposal would expressly include rhabdomyolysis within the definition of heat illness, add supplements and recreational drugs to the list of personal risk factors, and create a more detailed and consistent description of heat illness signs and symptoms across both regulations. Although these revisions may not dramatically alter day-to-day compliance obligations, employers may ultimately need to update training materials, written programs, and educational resources if the proposal moves forward substantially as drafted.

What Happens Next?

The August 14 proposal remains a discussion draft rather than a formal rulemaking proposal. Additional revisions may occur following the public comment period before Cal/OSHA initiates formal rulemaking under California’s Administrative Procedure Act. Interested stakeholders have until September 21, 2026, to submit comments.

Employer Takeaways

First, the proposal would significantly expand the reach of outdoor high-heat procedures by removing an existing industry-based limitation. Second, Cal/OSHA proposes more well-defined acclimatization requirements for newly assigned and returning employees. Third, employers should anticipate additional administrative obligations relating to Heat Illness Prevention Plan distribution and updates to training materials and written programs.

Listen to this post 3 min
AI-generated voice Open MP3

On August 1, 2026, Louisiana’s Behind the Counter Protection Act (LBCPA) will expand Louisiana’s existing labor and employment laws by establishing new employment provisions and criminal penalties for threats and acts of workplace violence committed against customer-facing workers. The law applies primarily to workers in retail stores, restaurants, convenience stores, gas stations, pharmacies, and similar customer-facing establishments.

Workplace Violence Defined

The Act defines workplace violence broadly to include:

  • Assault
  • Battery
  • Robbery
  • Intimidation
  • Verbal abuse
  • Threats involving a weapon
  • Any conduct that places an employee in reasonable fear of physical harm while performing job duties

This broad definition reflects a growing recognition that workplace violence extends beyond physical attacks and may include threats and intimidating behavior that undermine employee safety.

Criminal Penalties

Under the Act, offenders are subject to enhanced criminal penalties. A simple assault committed against a protected employee may result in a fine of up to $1,000 and/or imprisonment for not more than six months. A simple battery committed against a protected employee may result in a fine of up to $2,000 and/or imprisonment for no more than two years.

Employer Requirements

The Act does not require employers to take any specific action. However, it permits employers to display signage on their premises containing the following statement in forty-eight-point boldface font:

“WARNING: Workplace violence against an employee is a crime and will not be tolerated. Such acts may result in arrest and criminal conviction under Louisiana law.”

For employers interested in displaying this signage, Louisiana Works will furnish a sign that conforms to the specifications described above and make it available for employers to display on their premises.

Takeaways

Although the LBCPA does not impose significant obligations on employers, OSHA’s General Duty Clause still requires employers to provide a workplace free from recognized hazards that are likely to cause death or serious physical harm. Workplace violence remains a focus area for regulators, particularly in industries that involve direct interaction with the public. Retail establishments should consider posting the available notice as part of their overarching workplace violence prevention strategy.

Louisiana employers should review their current workplace violence prevention policies and procedures to ensure they adequately address potential risks in customer-facing environments.

Seyfarth Shaw will continue to monitor developments and provide updates regarding workplace violence compliance and best practices. Additionally, Seyfarth Shaw’s Workplace Safety and Environmental Team can assist employers in reviewing current policies and procedures and developing strategies to promote a safer workplace.

Listen to this post 8 min
AI-generated voice Open MP3

Employers often approach workplace accidents and resulting OSHA citations as discrete regulatory events — managed by safety teams, resolved through settlement or litigation, and ultimately closed. As many employers come to learn, OSHA inspections and citations frequently serve as the entry point into a much broader and more complex risk landscape—one that can implicate criminal exposure, expand into multiple forms of civil litigation, and create significant business and reputational consequences.

Below is a structured look at how that risk unfolds—and how employers can position themselves to manage it and limit liabilities.

OSHA Citations: The Gateway Issue

At the most basic level, OSHA citations matter for many reasons beyond the monetary penalties, which can be significant. Accepted OSHA citations can create evidence for a tort case, predicates on the record for future repeat and willful violations, “red flags” for third party tracking services, and public relations disasters. Citations can quickly become foundational evidence for other forms of liability, and in serious cases, may trigger criminal enforcement.

Criminal Liability Under the OSH Act

Many employers underestimate the circumstances under which OSHA violations can lead to criminal charges. Under Section 17(e) of the OSH Act, criminal liability may arise where a workplace fatality occurs, the employer violated a specific OSHA standard (not just the General Duty Clause), and the violation was classified as willful and caused the fatality.

The consequences can include up to 6 months imprisonment and fines up to $500,000 for the company and $250,000 for individuals.

Importantly, an entire multinational organization can be publicly impugned, indicted and prosecuted based on the misconduct of one lower-level manager.  But prosecution is not limited to the corporate entity. Criminal liability can extend to safety managers, operations managers, and executives.

Despite turnover at federal agencies, OSHA continues to refer Section 17(e) cases and the Department of Justice continues to prosecute them. For an employer to be indicted and ultimately convicted of a violation, the Department of Justice will need to prove to a jury the existence of the willful OSHA violation (and willful mental state by a specific management individual) beyond a reasonable doubt, a higher legal standard than required for OSHA toissue the civil citation. 

The Critical Role of “Willful” Violations

The willful classification is the linchpin for USDOL seeking enhanced civil penalties and USDOJ pursuing criminal sanctions.

Though definitions can vary based on jurisdiction and federal courts, OSHA generally defines a willful violation as involving purposeful disregard of a known legal requirement or plain indifference to employee safety, including failure to act on known hazards or communicate safety requirements.

In practice, this means that the government is looking for evidence that management:

  • Knew of the requirement and hazard;
  • Failed to act; or
  • Failed to implement effective safety systems.

Pre-accident hazard analysis and post-incident narratives—documents, emails, training records, and witness testimony—become central to enforcement risk.

Avoiding the Willful Trap

From a compliance standpoint, the most effective defense is a proactive and documented safety program. Key elements include:

  • Identifying and addressing hazards before an incident;
  • Implementing a safety and health management system and appropriate safety programs to address identified hazards;
  • Supervising employees and effectively enforcing safety rules; and
  • Conducting root cause analyses after incidents and implementing recommendations.

These are not merely “best practices”—they are the factors OSHA and DOJ will examine in determining whether conduct crosses into willful territory. It is critical for employers to manage OSHA inspections deliberately and strategically to avoid willful OSHA citations.

Criminal Exposure Beyond OSHA: “Dishonesty” Offenses

A critical—and often overlooked—risk arises from employers’ conduct during inspections and investigations. Many high-profile prosecutions stem not just from the underlying safety failure—but from attempts to conceal it.

Employers (and individuals) may face separate federal criminal liability for falsifying records, and making false statements to federal investigators. These offenses carry penalties of up to 5 years imprisonment per violation.

There is no requirement for Miranda warnings in OSHA interviews, meaning statements made casually or without counsel may still be used in criminal proceedings. The takeaway is straightforward: inspection management and interview preparation are risk-critical activities. Employers must provide only truthful, non-speculative information.

State Criminal Liability: No Federal Shield

Employers sometimes assume that federal OSHA enforcement preempts state criminal law. That is not the case. Courts have confirmed that state prosecutors may pursue criminal charges based on workplace safety violations, including:

  • Manslaughter
  • Reckless conduct
  • Even murder, in extreme cases

These cases often target both corporate entities and individual executives, particularly where there is evidence of knowing disregard for safety risks.

The “Bermuda Triangle” of Civil Exposure

Beyond criminal enforcement, workplace incidents frequently trigger overlapping civil liabilities—what we often describe as a “Bermuda Triangle” of claims.

Employment Law Exposure

Workplace incidents can intersect with multiple employment statutes, including:

  • FMLA (leave rights and job protection)
  • ADA (reasonable accommodation and disability protections)
  • Whistleblower laws, where employees report safety concerns

Employment retaliation claims—particularly after injuries or safety complaints—present significant risk and are actively investigated by the OSHA whistleblower investigation office.

Workers’ Compensation—And Its Limits

Direct employees of the employer are typically limited to compensation for workplace injuries and illnesses in the workers’ compensation system.

While workers’ compensation systems provide the exclusive remedy for many injury claims, they do not eliminate all exposure.

Employers still face:

  • Retaliation claims for employees who report injuries
  • Variability in benefits and procedures across states
  • Potential spillover into other forms of litigation

Perhaps the most expansive exposure arises from third-party claims, including:

  • Negligence (failure to train, supervise, or identify hazards)
  • Breach of contract claims involving contractors
  • Product liability or equipment modification issues
  • Indemnity and subrogation claims from insurers

These claims often rely heavily on OSHA findings and underlying incident facts.

The Bottom Line: A Single Incident, Multiple Fronts

What begins as an OSHA inspection can quickly expand into criminal enforcement (federal and state), parallel civil litigation, employment claims, as well as reputational and business consequences.

And in nearly every instance, the OSHA citation—and the facts developed during that process—serve as the central narrative thread across all proceedings. In short: OSHA citations are not an endpoint—they are often the beginning of a much broader exposure profile. Employers that recognize this early are far better positioned to manage risk and avoid escalation across criminal, civil, and business domains.

Employers’ best practices:

  • Treat OSHA inspections as serious, high-stakes legal events and not brain-storming sessions.
  • Invest in proactive safety systems that demonstrate diligence and good faith.
  • Manage incident response carefully, including evidence preservation and root cause analysis.
  • If applicable, take prompt effective action to correct unsafe conditions, remove unsafe equipment from service, and retrain employees.
  • Engage in careful communications with caution to preserve privilege and avoid admissions.
  • Prepare personnel for OSHA interviews and avoid admissions.
  • Align legal, safety, and business leadership in responding to incidents and citations.
Listen to this post 9 min
AI-generated voice Open MP3

Seyfarth Synopsis: On June 22, 2026, New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani signed Executive Order No. 17, Protecting Workers from Extreme Heat. The Executive Order, which took effect immediately, does not, standing alone, create a new private-sector heat standard. Instead, it directs City agencies to develop multilingual heat illness prevention guidance, adopt heat illness prevention plans for municipal employees and contractors, review construction safety requirements, study heat-related workers’ compensation claims and potential public health reporting requirements, and reinforce existing protections such as bathroom access and construction-incident reporting. Employers with operations in New York City should treat the Order as an important signal of where local workplace heat regulation and enforcement may be headed, particularly for construction, delivery, warehousing, and other roles with elevated heat exposure.

Background on Heat Illness Enforcement

Summer heat waves and employee exposure to heat (from high temperatures, humidity, sunlight, industrial sources, and metabolic heat from exercise) are growing areas of concern to OSHA agencies. Though no current federal OSHA regulations impose specific heat illness requirements for private-sector employers, all New York employers are governed by the OSH Act’s General Duty Clause, requiring employers to provide a workplace free from any recognized hazards. Federal OSHA has used the OSH Act’s General Duty Clause to cite and prosecute employers who fail to protect employers from occupational exposures to heat, particularly when recognized outdoor heat waves result in horrific employee fatalities. Federal OSHA has revised its National Emphasis Program to focus its enforcement on occupational exposure to indoor and outdoor heat. New York City employers whose employees are exposed to heat should implement heat illness prevention programs now to protect employees, or risk OSHA and other legal liabilities. 

New York City’s Initial Foray Into Local Heat Illness Regulation

Because federal OSHA’s heat illness regulations still in the rule-making process, New York City has joined the growing list of local jurisdictions moving forward with their own workplace heat illness protections. Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s Executive Order is premised on the City Department of Health’s finding that “hundreds of thousands of workers in New York City” are exposed to extreme heat while working on hot days, increasing the risk of heat-related illness and death. The Executive Order also recognizes that heat stress can increase the risk of workplace injury more broadly, reduce productivity, and place pressure on workers who lack paid breaks, reliable restroom access, or practical opportunities to hydrate during the workday.

The Executive Order identifies several worker populations as examples of those facing heat-related risk, including construction workers, street vendors, and app-based delivery workers, day laborers, and other gig workers. It notes that roughly one-third of the City’s working population are believed to work outdoors for prolonged periods of time. The Executive Order ties these concerns to climate trends, including the City’s projection [YAR1] that by the 2050s, New York City could experience more than four times as many heat waves each year compared to current rates.

What the Executive Order Requires

Rather than create a comprehensive set of new regulations that private employers must follow, the Executive Order directs the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (“DOHMH”), in coordination with other New York City departments, to develop worker heat illness prevention guidance and educational materials. Those materials must recommend best practices to prevent heat-related illnesses, injuries, and deaths for employees in both outdoor and indoor worksites. The guidance must be available in languages commonly spoken by workers in New York City. Outdoor worker guidance is to be prepared as soon as practicable. Indoor worker guidance must be prepared by March 1, 2027.

The Executive Order further directs the Department of Buildings (“DOB”) to review current construction safety and training requirements to determine whether existing requirements sufficiently protect against worker heat illness. DOB is directed to consult with relevant worker organizations and may issue recommendations for new construction safety and training guidance. Those recommendations are also due by March 1, 2027.

In addition, the Executive Order requires all agencies to develop and implement indoor and outdoor worker heat illness plans for City employees and contractors when the City’s Heat Emergency Plan is activated. Agencies must consider revised DOHMH guidance when developing and implementing those plans. Separately, when the Heat Emergency Plan is activated, the New York City Emergency Management must communicate worker heat illness prevention information based on forecasted temperatures, including recommendations for employers based on the new guidance.

The Executive Order directs DOHMH to review heat-related workers’ compensation claims filed with the New York State Workers’ Compensation Board by City employees to evaluate patterns related to temperature, including excess risk during hot weather. DOHMH also must study whether heat-related illnesses should be added to the City’s list of Diseases and Conditions of Public Health Interest reportable under section 11.03 of the New York City Health Code. The study must consider whether reports should include the location of employment and the identity of the employer. If DOHMH determines that reporting would serve the public health interest, the Commissioner of Health may propose amendments to the Health Code.

Finally, during times of high heat, DOB must notify and remind property owners, contractors, subcontractors, and others in control of construction sites of existing obligations to report heat-related incidents when a worker requires emergency medical services transport or immediate emergency care. City agencies with jurisdiction over worker protection measures are directed to strictly enforce rules intended to increase public bathroom access for outdoor workers, including the New York City Administrative Code provision granting food delivery workers the right to use the bathroom of restaurants for which they make deliveries. City agencies also must include information about bathrooms, Cooling Centers, Parks Department cooling locations, water features, drinking fountains, and shaded locations in messaging to workers.

What the Executive Order Does Not Do

The Executive Order is not a standalone occupational heat standard imposing immediate requirements for private employers. There is no new requirement to provide water, shade, rest breaks, acclimatization, training, or written heat illness prevention plans. Rather, the Executive Order directs City agencies to develop guidance, evaluate existing requirements, communicate heat safety information, enforce certain existing rules, and consider future regulatory action.

At the same time, employers should not dismiss the Order as symbolic. The decisions and guidance arising out of the Executive Order could become the foundation for more specific rules, procurement expectations, enforcement, or local standards of care.

Employer Takeaways

Employers with New York City operations, particularly those with outdoor, transportation, warehouse, or other heat-exposed workforces, should monitor the City’s follow-on guidance and agency action closely. Construction employers should pay particular attention to DOB’s review and recommendations issued before the March 1, 2027 deadline. Employers that contract with City agencies should also evaluate whether municipal heat illness prevention plans may flow down through contract terms, site rules, or agency-specific work requirements.

Even before additional guidance is issued, employers should review existing heat illness prevention plans. A practical review should address access to cool drinking water, rest and recovery opportunities, shade or cooling areas where feasible, acclimatization for new or returning workers, training for supervisors and employees, emergency response procedures, heat index or temperature monitoring, and documentation of heat-related controls and communications. For multilingual workforces, employers should also evaluate whether heat safety information is being delivered in languages workers actually understand.

The Executive Order also arrives against the backdrop of heightened federal and state attention to heat illness prevention. OSHA has proposed a heat-specific rule for indoor and outdoor work settings. In the interim, OSHA continues to rely on the General Duty Clause and its heat-related national emphasis program enforcement initiatives to inspect and cite employers for heat hazards. New York City’s Executive Order is another data point in a broader trend toward more prescriptive heat illness prevention expectations.

Practical Checklist for Employers

  • Conduct job hazard analyses to identify job tasks with outdoor or indoor heat exposure, including nontraditional or contractor workforces.
  • Develop and implement heat illness prevention plan to protect employees.
  • Review water, rest, shade, cooling, acclimatization, and emergency response practices.
  • Train employees, ensuring that employees and supervisors understand how to recognize and respond to heat-related illness.
  • Assess whether heat safety communications are available in languages commonly understood by the workforce.
  • Monitor New York City agency guidance, DOB construction recommendations, and any Health Code reporting proposal.
Listen to this post 4 min
AI-generated voice Open MP3

Seyfarth Synopsis: Federal OSHA has proposed new rulemakings seek to minimize respiratory protection requirements for employers which may require employers to update practices in 2026.  

In June 2026, OSHA has advanced a proposal to amend the Respiratory Protection Standard (29 CFR 1910.134) and scheduled virtual public hearings on this and other proposed rulemakings.

1. What’s the Change to the Respiratory Protection Standard?

Under the current Respiratory Protection Standard, employees whose job duties might require them to use respirators must be medically evaluated, receive fit tests, and receive appropriate training.  Voluntary use of filtering facepiece respirators (FFRs) can be allowed with special Appendix D training (and no medical evaluation or fit test), but only where there is no exposure to a respiratory hazard above an occupational exposure limit.

OSHA’s proposed regulatory update would remove medical evaluation requirements for employees using filtering facepiece respirators (FFRs), such as N95s, and loose-fitting powered air-purifying respirators (PAPRs).  All other Respiratory Protection Standard program elements—hazard assessment, training, fit testing, and maintenance—would remain unchanged.

2. Why the Change?

Medical evaluations ask detailed questions and require follow-up for a range of common respiratory and cardiovascular conditions, resulting in substantial administrative costs to employers. In practice, doctors rarely prohibit employees from donning FFRs (e.g. N-95 masks commonly worn during the pandemic) and PAPRs (which feed air into a mask and do not require negative pressure through a filter). Further, OSHA notes that FFRs and PAPRs impose minimal physiological burden in typical work conditions, and cites the limited evidence that medical evaluations improve safety outcomes for FFR and PAPR users.

3. Potential Legal Claims Founded on Respirator Injuries

Regardless of the alleged low physiological burden created by FFRs and PAPRs and the limited evidence of improved safety outcomes, the Respiratory Protection Standard’s medical evaluation requirements were founded on an understanding that respirator use could cause injuries to certain sensitive employees. Respirator use without medical evaluations could result in or coincide with physical injuries or mental health crises (e.g. claustrophobia from the confining mask of a PAPR). For direct employees, these incidents could result in unanticipated workers’ compensation claims. Staffing agency employees or third-party contractors could file tort claims against the host employer. 

4. Overlooked ADA liabilities?

Because workers who would only don an FFR or PAPR would no longer be required to have a medical evaluation performed, a policy that requires medical evaluations for these employees may constitute an unlawful medical inquiry under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act, subjecting the employer to ADA liability.  Accordingly, the Respiratory Protection Standard revision may require employers to update their respiratory protection programs and analyze which types of respirators employees will use to ensure they can lawfully be medically evaluated.

5. Additional Chemical Standard Proposed Changes

OSHA is also proposing rulemakings on regulations relating to 16 chemicals, to expand the types of permissible respirators. 

Chemical standards proposed for change include: 2-dibromo-3-chloropropane; 1, 3-Butadiene; 13 Carcinogens (4-Nitrobiphenyl, etc.); Acrylonitrile; Asbestos; Benzene; Cadmium; Coke Oven Emissions; Cotton Dust; Ethylene Oxide; Formaldehyde; Inorganic Arsenic; Lead; Methylene Chloride; Methylenedianiline; and Vinyl Chloride.

6.  Fixed Ladder Proposed Changes

OSHA proposed amending the Walking Working Surface Standard with regard to fixed ladders to eliminate the November 18, 2036 deadline requiring employers to retrofit all existing fixed ladders over 24 feet with personal fall arrest or ladder safety systems.

For questions on these issues or other workplace safety and environmental inquiries, contact your attorney from Seyfarth’s Workplace Safety and Environmental team.

Listen to this post 6 min
AI-generated voice Open MP3

By: Ilana Morady

Cal/OSHA recently issued a revised draft of its general industry workplace violence prevention standard, offering the clearest indication yet of how the Division intends to build on SB 553. Although the rule is not final, the current draft reflects meaningful stakeholder input and signals where compliance expectations are likely headed. Employers should treat it as a practical roadmap, particularly given that Cal/OSHA is already enforcing workplace violence prevention obligations through SB 553.

Comments on the current draft are due by June 1, after which additional revisions are expected before the rule advances further in the rulemaking process.

Expansion Beyond SB 553

The draft largely incorporates the framework created by SB 553, which took effect in July 2024, but goes further by adding detail on hazard assessment, post‑incident response, and program implementation. The Division continues to rely on its authority to impose additional requirements it deems necessary to protect employee safety. The final standard will not simply mirror the statute but instead expand on it in ways that require more structured and documented compliance efforts.

Trauma Counseling Requirement Refined

One of the most closely watched provisions remains the trauma counseling requirement. The revised draft reflects a shift from earlier language by clarifying that employers satisfy this obligation if counseling is available through workers’ compensation, employee assistance programs, or initial services offered by the employer.

Cal/OSHA also emphasizes that employers are not responsible for diagnosis or treatment. Even with these revisions, questions remain about which employees qualify as “affected” and how broadly the obligation may apply following an incident.

Scope and Coverage Changes

The updated draft introduces several targeted revisions that clarify who is covered and how coverage is measured. The small employer exemption has been narrowed by revising how employee headcount is calculated. Instead of looking at staffing at a single point in time, the draft requires employers to assess whether they have 10 or fewer employees based on staffing levels at the workplace over the preceding 365 days. This change is intended to prevent fluctuation in coverage based on temporary staffing patterns and aligns the measurement approach with other Cal/OSHA standards.

The scope of the rule has also been expanded to expressly include employer‑provided transportation. This addition closes a gap that could otherwise exclude incidents occurring during transportation arranged or controlled by the employer, such as shuttle services or company vehicles used for work-related travel.

The draft further revises key definitions to align with existing Cal/OSHA provisions. In particular, the definitions of “authorized employee representative” and “designated representative” have been conformed to existing regulatory language, which may broaden who can participate in workplace violence prevention activities, including access to records and involvement in investigations. These definitional changes are likely to have practical implications for how employers manage employee participation, third-party representatives, and the flow of sensitive information within their programs.

Hazard Assessment Expectations

Cal/OSHA has revised not just the examples in the hazard assessment section, but the structure and framing of the analysis itself in response to stakeholder feedback. Earlier drafts included a list of specific “examples” of workplace violence hazards, which many commenters viewed as overly prescriptive and potentially creating a checklist approach to compliance. In the current draft, the Division has removed several of those examples and reframed the list as factors for employers to consider when evaluating risks.

The agency deleted references to high crime areas, hostile work environments, working with individuals with a history of violence, excessive overtime, and providing security services. These changes reflect an effort to avoid characterizing certain industries or conditions as inherently hazardous and to shift the focus back to employer-specific risk assessments.

In addition, the Division has incorporated “appropriate staffing levels” into the definition of work practice controls. This change aligns the draft with the healthcare workplace violence standard and signals that Cal/OSHA may view staffing decisions as relevant to hazard mitigation in certain contexts.

Program Implementation and Training

The draft includes a number of refinements that affect how workplace violence prevention programs must operate. Employers must ensure that employees can report concerns to someone other than a supervisor who may be involved in the incident, particularly in employee‑on‑employee situations.

Training requirements have also been clarified. Employees must be given an opportunity to ask interactive questions, and where training is conducted remotely, those questions must be answered within one business day. The draft further clarifies that while employees are protected from retaliation for lawful self‑defense, employers may still enforce policies designed to prevent physical confrontations and reduce the risk of injury.

Recordkeeping and Access

The revised draft expands employee access to workplace violence records, including investigation materials. It also allows designated representatives to obtain access, subject to limited redaction of personal identifying information.

This expanded access raises practical considerations around confidentiality and data security, particularly given the sensitive nature of workplace violence investigations and the lack of clear boundaries around who may qualify as a representative.

Practical Implications Although further revisions are expected before formal rulemaking proceeds, the direction of the regulation is clear. Cal/OSHA is moving toward a comprehensive workplace violence standard that builds on SB 553 while expanding employer obligations in several key areas. In the meantime, enforcement continues under existing law.