By Andrew H. Perellis, Patrick D. Joyce, and Craig B. Simonsen

Seyfarth Synopsis:  The U.S. Supreme Court agreed this week to reconsider a key precedent of administrative law that tells judges to defer to an agency’s interpretation of its own ambiguous regulation, taking up a challenge to the so-called “Auer” or “Seminole Rock” deference.  The Auer deference has been criticized by conservative justices on the court. Kisor v. Sectretary of Veterans Affairs, No. 18-15 (US Dec. 10, 2018).

The specific question being considered is whether the Court should overrule Auer and Seminole Rock. In context, the specific question being considered is: what deference, if any, should courts give to an agency interpretation of its own regulation that has not gone through Administrative Procedure Act (APA) notice and comment rulemaking?

Historically, courts have struggled with the extent of deference to give an agency’s interpretations of its own regulations. Under the APA § 553(b)(A), agency interpretive rules and general statements of policy are exempt from notice and comment rulemaking because interpretative rules are non-substantive, and the APA only requires substantive interpretations, having the force of law, to go through notice and comment rulemaking. However, the “Auer doctrine,” from Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452, 117 S.Ct. 905 (1997), accords substantial deference to an Agency’s allegedly non-substantive interpretation of its own regulations, even if presented in an unofficial manner such as in an amicus brief.

We have blogged frequently on Auer deference and its impact on case law, precedent, and regulatory and agency authority — and ultimately on business and employers. These cases run the scope of topical law and issues. See for instance Ninth Circuit Issues En Banc Decision Upholding DOL’s 20% Tip Credit Rule; Ball is Now in DOL’s Court, Supreme Court to Rule on Case Addressing Bathroom Access Based on Gender Identity, Fourth Circuit Holds that “Sex” Under Title IX Incorporates Gender Identity, Texas District Court Enjoins Federal Gender Identity Protection Of Students, Judicial Deference to Informal Agency Interpretations: Could this be the Beginning of the End for Auer?, and Eighth Circuit Rejects OSHA’s Attempt to Expand the Scope of its Machine Guarding Standard.

In in Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA), 575 U.S. ____, 135 S.Ct. 1199 (2015), Supreme Court Justices Scalia and Thomas expressed their discontent with agency deference under the “Auer doctrine.”

In his analysis, Justice Scalia cited to § 556 of the APA for the proposition that only the courts may interpret agency actions, not the agencies themselves. Justice Scalia opined that the purpose of the § 553(b)(A) exemption was to allow agencies to advise the public on the impact of a complex regulation without binding the public to that interpretation.

However, Justice Scalia believed Auer deference acts to allow agencies to both advise and bind the public because the agency can draft the regulation to be broad and vague and then interpret it in a manner that would not have been evident to the public when the regulation was originally proposed for notice and comment. Further, under Auer, a reviewing court is beholden to an agency interpretation unless its interpretation is unreasonable, and the public is thus bound by the agency’s interpretation with the force of law. Justice Scalia called for abandoning Auer in a future decision, when the question was properly before the Court.

Justice Scalia distinguished Auer deference and deference to an agency’s interpretation of its governing statute, also known as “Chevron deference,” from Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984). Under Chevron, if a statutory term is ambiguous, then the agency has authority to construe that term and interpret its meaning within the statutory scheme by promulgating regulations following APA notice and comment procedures. This is arguably permissible because Congress explicitly granted agencies the ability to interpret their governing statutes, and APA rulemaking procedures are followed in establishing the interpretation via regulations. Justice Scalia pointed out that Auer is unlike Chevron because, under the Auer doctrine, an agency does not use APA notice and comment procedures and Congress has not explicitly granted agencies the ability to interpret their regulations. This difference was enough for Justice Scalia to call for the end of Auer.

Justice Thomas takes a different route when calling Auer into question, looking instead to the separation of powers and checks and balances put in place by the U.S. Constitution. In his concurrence in MBA, Justice Thomas referred to the cases dealing with deference to agency interpretations of regulations, beginning with Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 325 U.S. 410, 65 S.Ct. 1215 (1945), and calls into question the constitutionality of the entire line of cases, including Auer.

Justice Thomas believed that any deference to administrative interpretations of regulations constitutes a transfer of judicial power to the executive, contrary to the language of the Constitution. Because Seminole Rock and Auer erode the judicial obligation to serve as a check on the other branches and muddle the separation between the Judicial and the Executive Branches, Justice Thomas called for reconsideration of the entire Seminole Rock line of cases, including Auer, at the appropriate moment.

In addition, in a joint concurrence to a prior case, Decker v. Northwest Environmental Defense Center, 568 U.S. ___, 133 S.Ct. 1326 (2013), Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito indicated that reconsideration of Auer may be appropriate when the issue is properly before the Court. The issue of Auer deference was not before the Court in MBA or Decker, but with at least four Justices questioning the continued validity of the doctrine, it is possible the question of judicial deference to agency interpretive rules will be reconsidered under in Kisor.

Such a reconsideration of Auer would have significant impact upon administrative law. Judicial review of agency action provides important protection against arbitrary or unfair agency action. However, that review is significantly restricted under Auer¸ because a court must defer to an agency interpretation simply because it is issued by the agency, with little check on the reasonableness of the interpretation. Allowing courts to consider but not defer to agency interpretations would compel agencies to be more exacting (and perhaps more forthcoming) when engaging in rulemaking and interpreting regulations. Rulemaking, while perhaps a tedious process for the agency, required notice to the public, an opportunity for the public to comment, and an opportunity for judicial review, all to ensure that the agency action is consistent with law and not arbitrary or capricious.

For more information on this or any related topic please contact the authors, your Seyfarth attorney, or any member of the Seyfarth Environmental Compliance, Enforcement & Permitting or Workplace Safety and Health (OSHA/MSHA) Teams.

By Brent I. Clark, Mark A. Lies, IIAdam R. YoungDaniel R. Birnbaum, and Craig B. Simonsen

Seyfarth Synopsis:  OSHA has recently released its National Emphasis Program on Trenching and Excavation, CPL 02-00-161 (October 1, 2018), which requires OSHA to open inspections against any contractor involved in trenching or excavation work and report information back to the Area Office and national online system.

OSHA has long maintained construction standards related to trenching and excavation safety, including 1926.650 (Scope, application, and definitions applicable to this subpart), 1926.651 (Specific Excavation Requirements), and 1926.652 (Requirements for protective systems).  In 2017, the regulation governing cave in protection (1910.655(a)(1)) alone was cited against more than 500 employers.  On top of OSHA citations, trenching and excavation fatalities have been a source of criminal prosecution by federal and state authorities.  To effectuate enforcement of this hazard, OSHA has released a new National Emphasis Program, replacing OSHA’s earlier Special Emphasis: Trenching and Excavation, CPL 02-00-069 (September 19, 1985).

In its news release on the Directive, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA Loren Sweatt said “removing workers from and helping workers identify trenching hazards is critical….  OSHA will concentrate the full force of enforcement and compliance assistance resources to help ensure that employers are addressing these serious hazards.”  The NEP indicates that according to Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries (CFOI) data, there were 130 fatalities recorded in trenching and excavation operations between 2011 and 2016.  Private construction industry accounted for eighty percent, or 104, of those fatalities.  OSHA noted that it has a series of compliance assistance resources to help keep workers safe from trenching and excavation hazards.  The trenching and excavation webpage provides information on trenching hazards and solutions.

The 2018 NEP mandates that the Area Offices, beginning on October 1, 2018 roll out the Program with a “three-month period of education and prevention outreach.” During that period, OSHA will continue to respond to complaints, referrals, hospitalizations, and fatalities.

“Enforcement activities will begin after the outreach period and remain in effect until canceled.”  The NEP mandates intense new scrutiny of trenching and excavation operations.  The Program requires compliance officers (CSHOs) to initiate an inspection any time they observe a trench or excavation, whether observed during an inspection or merely in the course of their workday travel.  Accordingly, employing its Multi-Employer Worksite Doctrine, OSHA will be required to record and open an inspection against each employer who may have OSHA liability over trenching and excavation operations, including general contractors, subcontractors, and independent contractors.  Compliance officers must also promptly notify their Area Office of the trenching operation, state of the excavation, and any contractors involved.  They also must take photographs to document the worksite.

All enforcement activities by compliance officers must be recorded in OSHA’s online information system (OIS), creating a searchable database of trenching and excavation information.

Accordingly, construction contractors conducting trenching and excavation operations will face a greatly increased chance of an OSHA inspection and regulatory scrutiny, especially those operations that are located on major thoroughfares and high-profile locations or in areas likely to be travelled by OSHA inspectors.  Employers should consult with safety professionals and outside counsel to ensure compliance with the relevant OSHA Standards.

For more information on this or any related topic please contact the author, your Seyfarth attorney, or any member of the Workplace Safety and Health (OSHA/MSHA) Team.

By Jeryl L. OlsonKay R. Bonza, and Craig B. Simonsen

Seyfarth Synopsis: New Illinois Office of State Fire Marshall (“OSFM”) regulations, (42 Ill. Reg. 10476, 10662-667, June 15, 2018, effective October 13, 2018), require that periodic operation and maintenance include recorded “walkthrough inspections” for underground storage tank (UST) facilities. 

Under new OSFM rules, each Class A Operator, who has the primary responsibility of operating and maintaining the UST system, and Class B Operator, designated with day-to-day aspects of operating, maintaining and recordkeeping for UST systems “… shall perform walkthrough inspections of each storage tank system for which he or she is designated, and shall record the results of each inspection on a checklist to be maintained with the facility records.”  The walkthrough inspection requirement took effect on October 13, 2018, and replaces the previous requirement to conduct quarterly equipment inspections.  The rules under Part 35, Section 176.655 of the Illinois Administrative Code, require that at a minimum, a walkthrough inspection shall be conducted at least once every 30 days and include inspection of:

  • Release detection methods, including monitoring systems and all associated sensors;
  • The integrity of spill and overfill prevention and spill containment equipment and manholes;
  • Dispensers, hoses, breakaways and hardware for leaks and damage; and
  • Operational status of impressed current cathodic protection systems, including checking and recording that the power is on and that the voltage, amps and hour meter have the appropriate readings required under Section 175.510(f), with a log entry that shows date of inspection, initials of inspector, hour, volt and amp readings, and power on verification.

In addition, at least once per year the Operator shall inspect:

  • All containment sumps by: (i) checking for visual damage to the sumps, covers and lids; (ii) checking for the presence of regulated substances or any indication that a release may have occurred; and (iii) checking that the sumps and the interstitial areas for any double-walled sumps with interstitial monitoring are free of water, product and debris;
  • All UST equipment including emergency stops for the presence or absence of visible damage to any UST component;
  • Emergency stops to document they have been tested by the owner/operator or a contractor for interconnection and pump shutdown;
  • Shear valves to document they have been visually inspected by the owner/operator or a contractor;
  • All required signs to ensure they are fully visible and all communication systems in place and operational;
  • All daily, 30-day, monthly and annual inspections, testing, reporting and records required under 41 Ill. Adm. Code 174, 175 and 176; and
  • If applicable, the tank gauge stick or groundwater bailers, for operability and serviceability (manual tank gauging or groundwater monitoring).

To assist owners and operators with rule compliance and recordkeeping requirements, the OSFM provides a UST Operations and Maintenance Plan Template Form (OSFM O&M Plan Template).  As noted in the OSFM O&M Plan Template and in the rules, each Class A or Class B Operator “shall perform walkthrough inspections” of each storage tank system for which they are designated and shall record the results of each inspection “on a checklist to be maintained with the facility records.”  Specific 30 day inspection report forms and annual walkthrough inspection report forms are also available from the OSFM.  The OSFM also provides FAQs For Class A, B, and C Operator Training.

For more information on this or any related topic please contact the authors, your Seyfarth attorney, or any member of Seyfarth’s Environmental Compliance, Enforcement & Permitting Team.

By Adam R. Young and Craig B. Simonsen

Seyfarth Synopsis: New state and federal laws and rules require employers to have compliant phones systems for 911 direct dialing and E-911.

Most large employers maintain multiline phone systems at their workplaces.  Along with emergency action plans and evacuation procedures, employers must take affirmative steps to ensure that employee phones provide adequate safety protections in the event of an emergency.  Some jurisdictions impose numerous regulations on those systems and their ability to dial 911, requiring onerous notifications, procedures, labels, and 911 dialing features.  And those requirements are constantly evolving, as 2018 marked a seminal shift in 911 regulations.

The federal government has passed a new law requiring that phones dial 911 directly, and has directed the Federal Communications Commission to undertake a rulemaking on Enhanced 911 regulations, also called “E-911.”  These federal and state developments may require employers to take action to ensure compliance, and revamp their emergency safety equipment and procedures.

New Federal Law Requires Direct Dialing of 911

In recent years, nine states and New York City have adopted rules requiring phones to be able to directly contact 911.  This means that any caller who dials 9-1-1 will be connected with emergency services, without a prefix (such as dialing 9 first) or going through an operator.  In 2018, President Trump signed a bipartisan new law which requires any phone to be able to directly contact 911, 47 U.S.C. § 623(b).  The federal law applies to all types of newly installed multiline phone systems.  State and local laws may require existing systems to be revamped by a compliance date.  Accordingly, employers replacing their phone systems or installing new systems will need to comply with these requirements.  Employers who operate phone systems that require an operator or dialing to get an outside line should review their systems and ensure that they comply.

Federal E-911 Legislation May Be Forthcoming

Federal and state governments have begun to require Enhanced 911 services for employers who use multiline phone systems.  States have enacted Enhanced 911 or E-911 requirements to multiline phone systems.  E-911 means that the telephone system automatically will transmit  phone number information or specific location information (building, floor, office number) to emergency services when a caller dials 911.

These restrictions vary by state, but can require employers to notify employees regarding E-911 capabilities, train employees on 911 dialing procedures, and provide written instructions near phones.  Some also require that the phones provide E-911 capabilities in terms of number and/or location information.  The President signed H.R. 4986 § 506 (March 7, 2018), which requires the Federal Communication Commission to consider adopting rules that ensure a “dispatchable location” is conveyed with 911 calls.  The statute requires the FCC to conclude a proceeding to consider adopting rules E-911 location rules by September 23, 2019.  Employers should monitor this process closely, as it could result in another unfunded mandate for employers to comply with E-911.

Employers should begin work now to ensure that their phone systems comply, and that their employees are properly trained on the new and pending federal and state laws and regulations.  For additional information on workplace safety, emergency procedures, and emergency equipment, please follow our blog, or feel free to contact the authors, your Seyfarth attorney, or any member of the Workplace Safety and Health (OSHA/MSHA) or Workplace Policies and Handbooks Teams.

By James L. CurtisAdam R. Young, and Craig B. Simonsen

Seyfarth Synopsis:  We had blogged previously that OSHA appealed an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ruling that severely limited OSHA’s Multi-Employer Worksite Doctrine and citation of a “controlling employer” general contractor. Acosta v. Hensel Phelps Constr. Co., No. 17-60543 (5th Cir. August 4, 2017).  The Fifth Circuit has now reversed the ALJ, and upheld OSHA’s Multi-Employer Worksite Doctrine.

In dramatic language, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (governing federal law in Texas, Mississippi, and Louisiana) announced, that “thirty-seven years ago, this court, in a tort case, announced that ‘OSHA regulations protect only an employer’s own employees’.”  Melerine v. Avondale Shipyards, Inc., 659 F.2d 706, 711 (5th Cir. 1981).  That decision had endured despite the seismic shift brought about by Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), and of broader employer liability under the Act.  Acosta v Hensel Phelps Construction, No 17-60543 (5th Cir November 26, 2018).  OSHA’s Multi-Employer Worksite Doctrine enables the Agency to cite employers who are “controlling,” “exposing,” “creating,” or “correcting” safety hazards.  OSHA regularly cites general contractors as “controlling” employers with regard to hazards only faced by subcontractor employees.

In the instant appeal, the Court was asked whether OSHA has the authority, under either the Occupational Safety and Health Act, 29 U.S.C. § 651 et seq. (the Act), or regulations, “to issue a citation to a general contractor at a multi-employer construction worksite who controls a hazardous condition at that worksite, even if the condition affects another employer’s employees.”  The Court concluded that OSHA does indeed have that authority under the Act.

Factually, an OSHA compliance officer conducted an inspection of the site and discovered three sub-contractor employees working at the base of an unprotected wall of evacuated soil.  The contractor’s and the subcontractor’s superintendents were present at the wall, with full views of the subcontractor’s employees working near the wall.  OSHA cited both contractor and the subcontractor for willfully violating 29 C.F.R. § 1926.652(a)(1) for allegedly “exposing employees to a cave-in hazard from an unprotected excavation at a construction site.”

The ALJ determined that the contractor met the requirements to be considered a “controlling employer” who had a duty under 29 U.S.C. § 651 et seq., to “act reasonably to prevent or detect and abate violations at the worksite even when the affected employees are those of another employer.”  However, because the citation arose within the jurisdiction of the Fifth Circuit, the ALJ found that “Fifth Circuit precedent foreclosed the citation” against the general contractor.  The ALJ relied on Melerine, Inc., 659 F.2d at 711, finding that “an employer at a worksite within the Fifth Circuit cannot be held in violation of the Act when the employees exposed to the hazard were employees of a different employer.”

Rather than follow Commission precedent and uphold the citation, the ALJ found that “where it is highly probable that a Commission decision would be appealed to a particular circuit, the Commission has generally applied the precedent of that circuit in deciding the case – even though it may differ from the Commission’s precedent.” Kerns Bros. Tree Service, Docket No. 96-1719, 2000 WL 294514 (Mar. 16, 2000).  Therefore, the ALJ ruled that “applying 5th Circuit precedent, Respondent cannot be liable for a violation of the Act based solely upon a subcontractor’s employees’ exposure to the condition,”  and vacated the citation.

The Court here concluded that “an agency’s interpretation of its governing statute in an administrative adjudication ‘is as much an exercise of delegated lawmaking powers as is the Secretary’s promulgation of a workplace health and safety standard… The Multi-Employer Worksite Doctrine is an agency document that provides guidance to OSHA inspectors as to when it may be appropriate to cite a particular employer.”  The Secretary did not derive any authority from the Policy in issuing the citation to Hensel Phelps; “he relied on the statute itself and engaged in adjudication on the basis of that statutory authority.”  The Court found that the Secretary’s construction of the statute as granting authority to issue citations to controlling employers is a “reasonably defensible” one.

Accordingly, OSHA’s Multi-Employer Worksite Doctrine is now fully enforceable in the Fifth Circuit.

For more information on this or any related topic please contact the authors, your Seyfarth attorney, or any member of the Workplace Safety and Health (OSHA/MSHA) or Workplace Policies and Handbooks Teams.

By James L. Curtis, Daniel R. Birnbaum, and Craig B. Simonsen

Seyfarth Synopsis: Employers should prepare for the holiday shopping season and protect their employees from harm and injuries.

As the holiday shopping season approaches, OSHA has previously reminded retail and hospitality employers of the importance of taking safety precautions during the holiday season’s major sales events, such as Black Friday.

Holiday shopping has increasingly become associated with violence and hazards. There has been numerous instances of riots, shootings, and pepper-spray attacks in crowds looking for holiday deals.  In one case, a worker was trampled to death while a mob of shoppers rushed through the doors of a store to take advantage of a Black Friday sales event.  Events of violence and shooting at malls and retail establishments have become all too common in our society.  Additionally, retail distribution centers that fill customer orders are exceedingly busy at this time of year and often staffed with new and/or temporary workers.  Such increased staffing levels can lead to increased workplace accidents.

Under OSHA’s general duty clause, “employers are responsible for providing a place of employment free of recognized hazards that are likely to cause serious injury or death.”  To minimize injuries in the workplace during the holiday season, OSHA’s website on Holiday Workplace Safety provides employers with recommendations for crowd management plans and safe practices for retail distribution centers.

Retailers are advised to review and implement the OSHA suggestions for crowd management. Adopting, implementing, and training store employees on the crowd management plan will both lessen the risk of employee and shopper incidents, and will assist the employer in fending off potential OSHA enforcement proceedings, should an accident occur.

For more information on this or any related topic please contact the authors, your Seyfarth attorney, or any member of the Workplace Safety and Health (OSHA/MSHA) Team.

By Mark A. Lies, II,  Adam R. Young, and Daniel R. Birnbaum

Seyfarth Synopsis:  The flu and cold season is now approaching. Employers face concerns about how to respond to highly infectious diseases when an employee reports such illness. Seasonal illnesses have the potential to infect employees and shut down operations because of employee absence due to illness. Employers must consider methods to keep their employees healthy and productive while not running into legal pitfalls.

With the return to winter weather, the cold and flu season is once again upon us.  This creates challenges for employers. Seasonal illnesses have the potential to spread throughout the workforce, and negatively impact operations.  Companies should create a plan to respond to infectious diseases, including how to limit the spread of the disease within the workplace without violating any applicable laws or regulations.  Employers should also encourage employees to get flu shots and practice good hygiene at work.  Please click on this article for more detailed guidance for employers on dealing with infectious diseases during flu and cold season.

For more information on this or any related topic please contact the authors, your Seyfarth attorney, or any member of the Workplace Safety and Health (OSHA/MSHA) Team or the Workplace Policies and Handbooks Team.

By Joshua M. HendersonIlana R. MoradyJames L. Curtis, and Craig B. Simonsen

Seyfarth Synopsis: On November 6, 2018, the California Office of Administrative Law approved Cal/OSHA’s emergency regulation for the electronic submission of CY 2017 Form 300A on Occupational Injuries and Illnesses.  Covered employers will be required to submit their Forms to Federal OSHA by December 31, 2018.

As we previously blogged, businesses operating in California that would be required to submit the CalOSHA Form 300A online include all establishments with 250 or more employees, unless specifically exempted by section 14300.2 of Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations, and establishments with 20 to 249 employees in the specific industries listed in Appendix H of the emergency regulation’s proposed text (including common industries such as manufacturing, grocery stores, department stores, and warehousing and storage). The reporting deadline is December 31, 2018. Beginning in 2019, the reporting deadline would be March 2 of the year after the calendar year covered by the form(s). So, for example, CY 2018 300A Forms will need to be submitted by March 2, 2019.

Covered employers in California should submit their 300A summaries by following the instructions on federal OSHA’s Injury Tracking Application webpage.

Although the formal rulemaking process needs to be finalized before the emergency regulations are permanent, including a public comment period and public hearing, employers should plan to meet the upcoming December 31, 2018 deadline.  See any significant changes to the requirements summarized above.

For more information on this or any related topic please contact the authors, your Seyfarth attorney, or any member of the Workplace Safety and Health (OSHA/MSHA) Team.

By Brent I. ClarkJames L. CurtisAdam R. Young, and Craig B. Simonsen

Seyfarth Synopsis: Last month at the 2018 National Safety Council (NSC) Congress the speakers noted that “safety programs shouldn’t end when employees walk out the door and get into a vehicle to drive.”  The session was presented by Karen Puckett, the Director for the Center for Environmental Excellence Division of Enterprise Development at the University of Texas at Arlington, and Lisa Robinson, Senior Program Manager for Employer Transportation Safety, for the NSC. 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration statistics provided that in 2017 transportation deaths from crashes were the leading cause of workplace deaths in the USA.  These statistics are often lost on safety professionals because OSHA has no jurisdiction over transportation incidents on public roads.  Additionally, 2016 Bureau of Labor Statistics data show that 40% of employment fatalities were due to transportation incidents.

Puckett noted that the goal for the NSC’s program was to have considered the best practices for employees who drive for work.  This employment-based driving included not just fleet trucks and other vehicles, which are normally considered in company employee driving policies and training programs, but also any personally-owned employee vehicles and rental cars, vans, and other trucks that employees may use while doing company business.  Puckett explained that vehicles outside of the regular company fleet are often overlooked.

Puckett’s key takeaway was that the company’s personnel policy on driving and accident prevention and the related training materials and systems need to incorporate a recognition of these powerful statistics.  Employers need to build a workplace that promotes responsible driver behaviors, maintenance procedures and records, and effective training programs.

Robinson noted that the employer may also face considerable liability for any fatalities that come from employees driving on company business, however that is demanded by state law in the many states and localities the company may operate in.  Perhaps common sense behaviors for employee drivers to know are company policies prohibiting driving impaired by drugs or alcohol, driving while using a cellphone such as checking email, texting, or using the phone.  Many company policies do not incorporate these kinds of prohibitions.

Robinson concluded by illustrating numerous multi-million dollar jury verdicts and settlement agreements where employers were held responsible — even some where the employee was involved in activities or behaviors that some might reasonably suggest were not in the line of their employment.

For your further information, we have previously blogged on these related issues, including Drive Much? NIOSH Focus on Workplace Safety for Employees Who Drive for Their Job, President Declares “National Impaired Driving Prevention Month”, Asleep at the Wheel: Trucking Company’s Sleep Apnea Policy and Procedures Reviewed by Federal Courts, Impact of Driver Compensation on Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety, Eleventh Circuit Finds Insurance Carrier Responsible In Georgia For Harm Done by Intoxicated Employee, Employees Driving In Illinois? What Employers Need to Know, and Distracted Driving Leads to Employee Accidents and Fatalities.

Employer Takaway

For employers the key points from this session are that employee behavior on public roadways could have a big impact on the workplace.  The employer should have appropriate policies and training systems in place as part of a comprehensive safety program, with an aim to “improve your workplace driving safety culture.”

For more information on this or any related topic please contact the authors, your Seyfarth attorney, or any member of the Workplace Safety and Health (OSHA/MSHA) or Workplace Policies and Handbooks Teams.

By Joshua M. HendersonIlana R. MoradyJames L. Curtis, and Craig B. Simonsen

Seyfarth Synopsis: CalOSHA published a news release TODAY, on a new emergency regulation for the electronic submission of CY 2017 Form 300A on Occupational Injuries and Illnesses.  CalOSHA submitted the rule yesterday, and will allow public comments until Tuesday, October 30th, with the intention of adopting it as final by November 5th!

According to CalOSHA, businesses operating in California that would be required to submit the CalOSHA Form 300A online include all establishments with 250 or more employees, unless specifically exempted by section 14300.2 of Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations, and establishments with 20 to 249 employees in the specific industries listed on page 8 of the emergency regulation’s proposed text (including common industries such as manufacturing, grocery stores, department stores, and warehousing and storage). The reporting deadline would be December 31, 2018. Beginning in 2019, the reporting deadline would be March 2 of the year after the calendar year covered by the form(s). So, for example, CY 2018 300A Forms would be submitted by March 2, 2019.

Cal/OSHA submitted the emergency regulation amending recordkeeping sections 14300.35 and 14300.41 of Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) on October 25.  Interested persons have until “October 30 to submit comments on the proposed emergency regulation.” OAL will have until November 5 to review and adopt or deny the proposed regulation.

For more information on this or any related topic please contact the authors, your Seyfarth attorney, or any member of the Workplace Safety and Health (OSHA/MSHA) Team.