By Joshua M. Henderson, Ilana R. Morady, Brent I. Clark, and Craig B. Simonsen

Introduction: We are posting our colleagues’ California Peculiarities Employment Law Blog post on workplace violence.  While this particular topic is California centric, the principles discussed below are universal, and appropriate to publish widely.  For instance, workplace violence under federal OSHA is generally citable under the General Duty Clause of the Occupational Safety and Health Act. Many states, including California, also enforce workplace violence under their own versions of the General Duty Clause.  Additionally, local authorities generally will not get involved in a situation where employment workplace violence is feared — such as where one employee makes threatening statements about a co-worker/manager.  But where the employer/employee has obtained a restraining order, the police are more likely to intercede.

By Christopher Im and Minal Khan

Seyfarth Synopsis: Workplace violence is a major concern that can take the form of intimidation, threats, and even homicide. But fret not: California employers can arm themselves with restraining orders, to prevent a modern version of the “Fight Club” at work.

Rule Number 1: If There’s a Workplace Violence Threat, DO Talk About It—In Court

Being at work during a scene reminiscent of “There Will Be Blood” is not an ideal situation. Yet incidents of workplace violence are alarmingly common. According to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, nearly two million Americans report that they have witnessed incidents of workplace violence, ranging from taunts and physical abuse to homicide. The recent Long Beach law firm shooting by an ex-employee serves as a chilling reminder of what forms such violence can take.

While there is no surefire way to stop unpredictable attacks against employees—whether by a colleague, client, or stranger—California employers can avail themselves of measures to reduce the risk of workplace threats. One such measure is a judicial procedure: a workplace violence restraining order under California Civil Procedure Code section 527.8.

Rule No. 2: Understand What a California Restraining Order Looks Like

A California court can issue a workplace violence restraining order to protect an employee from unlawful violence or even a credible threat of violence at the workplace. A credible threat of violence simply means that someone is acting in such a way or saying something that would make a reasonable person fear for the person’s own safety or that of the person’s family. Actual violence need not have occurred. Many actions short of actual violence—such as harassing phone calls, text messages, voice mails, or emails—could warrant issuing a restraining order.

Restraining orders can extend beyond just the workplace and protect the employees and their families at their homes and schools. A California court can order a person to not harass or threaten the employee, not have contact or go near the employee, and not have a gun. A temporary order usually lasts 15 to 21 days, while a “permanent” order lasts up to three years.

Rule Number 3: Employer Requests Only, Please

The court will issue a workplace violence restraining order only when it is requested by the employer on behalf of an employee who needs protection. The employer must provide reasonable proof that the employee has suffered unlawful violence (e.g. assault, battery, or stalking) or a credible threat of violence, or that unlawful violence or the threat of violence can be reasonably construed to be carried out at the workplace.

So how does an employer request and obtain protection for their employees?

Rule Number 4: Document the “Fight”

The employer must complete the requisite forms and file them with the court. Though the forms do not require it, it often is helpful to include signed declarations from the aggrieved employee and other witnesses.

If a temporary restraining order is requested, a judge will decide whether to issue the order within the next business day, and if doing so will provide a hearing date on a permanent restraining order. A temporary restraining order must be served as soon as possible on the offender. The order becomes effective as soon as it is served. Temporary restraining orders last only until the hearing date.

Rule No. 5: Keep Your Eyes on the Prize at the Hearing

At the hearing, both the employee needing the restraining order and an employer representative should attend. Employers may bring witnesses, too, to help support their case. The person sought to be restrained also has a right to attend, so the employee needing the restraining order should be ready to face that person. If necessary, the employer or the employee can contact the court or local police in advance to request that additional security or protective measures be put in place where there is a threat of harm.

During the hearing itself, the judge may ask both parties to take the stand for questioning. Upon hearing the facts, the judge will either decide to deny the requested order or decide to issue a permanent restraining order, which can last up to three years.

Restraining orders are a serious matter, as employers are essentially asking the court to curtail an individual’s freedom. But such an order is a powerful tool that an employer may find necessary to protect the safety of its employees.

Workplace Solutions: Even though it may relatively easy to demonstrate a credible threat of violence and thus obtain a protective order, know that California courts protect all individuals’ liberty, including their freedom of speech. Obtaining an order to restrain that liberty requires a detailed factual showing.

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

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

Seyfarth Synopsis: On April 11, 2018, Arizona Governor Doug Ducey signed into law HB 2238, which amended the state’s administrative procedure laws to remove “Chevron Deference,” so that for disputes involving state administrative law, courts will not be required to defer to an agency’s interpretation of an ambiguous statutory provision.

The legal doctrine—named for the 1984 Supreme Court decision in Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 842-844 (1984)—has been criticized by various judges, including U.S. Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch (then sitting on the Tenth Circuit).  The U.S. Senate has also unsuccessfully attempted to repeal the doctrine.

Under Chevron, if a statutory term is ambiguous, the agency has authority to construe that term and interpret its meaning within the statutory scheme by promulgating regulations following Administrative Procedure Act (APA) notice and comment procedures.  In such instances, the court must defer to that interpretation.  This is arguably permissible because Congress explicitly granted agencies the ability to interpret their governing statutes, if APA rulemaking procedures are followed in establishing the agency’s interpretation of regulations.

State courts have largely followed or deferred to Chevron when evaluating an interpretation of a state statute by the state agency charged with implementing that statute’s mandates.

HB 2239 amended Arizona Revised Statutes §12-910, regarding the scope of judicial review of administrative decisions. The new law added language to subsection E, and created subsections F and G. The new statute reads as follows:

  1. . . . In a proceeding brought by or against the regulated party, the court shall decide all questions of law, including the interpretation of a constitutional or statutory provision or a rule adopted by an agency, without deference to any previous determination that may have been made on the question by the agency. Notwithstanding any other law, this subsection applies in any action for judicial review of any agency action that is authorized by law.
  2. Notwithstanding subsection E of this section, if the action arises out of Title 20, Chapter 15, Article 2, the court shall affirm the agency action unless after reviewing the administrative record and supplementing evidence presented at the evidentiary hearing the court concludes that the action is not supported by substantial evidence, is contrary to law, is arbitrary and capricious or is an abuse of discretion.
  3. This section does not apply to any agency action by an agency that is created pursuant to Article XV, Constitution of Arizona.

The Arizona law is believed to be the first state law of its kind. Interestingly, it appears to mandate that no deference at all be provided to a state agency’s interpretation, perhaps meaning that the court cannot even evaluate or weigh the reasonableness of the agency interpretation.  The law, however, continues the trend toward scaling back agency autonomy and power.

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

By Brent I. Clark, Ilana R. Morady, and Craig B. Simonsen

Seyfarth Synopsis: MSHA just announced its Final Rule on Examinations of Working Places in Metal and Nonmetal Mines. 83 Fed. Reg. 15055 (April 9, 2018).

The Final Rule, which will be effective on June 2, 2018, requires that:

  • Each working place be examined at least once each shift for conditions that may adversely affect safety or health of miners before work begins or as miners begin work in that place;
  • Mine operators promptly notify miners in affected areas of any conditions that may adversely affect their safety or health and promptly initiate appropriate corrective action. Notification is only necessary when adverse conditions are not promptly corrected before miners are exposed;
  • A record of the examination be made before the end of each shift, including the name of the person conducting the examination; the date of the examination; location of all areas examined; a description of each condition found that may adversely affect the safety or health of miners that is not promptly corrected, and the date of the corrective action (when that occurs); and
  • The record be made available to MSHA and miners’ representatives upon request.

The new rule imposes new requirements on mine operators, but is notably less burdensome that previous iterations of the workplace examination rule that has been in process for several years. For example, a previous proposed version of the rule would have required operators to examine workplaces before work began, whereas now the rule adds on “or as miners begin work in that place.” Also importantly, a previous version of the rule would have required operators to notify miners of all identified conditions, even if those conditions had been corrected before work began. Now, under the final rule, notification will only be required with respect to conditions that are not corrected. On a related note, operators need only make a record of conditions that are not promptly corrected.

Although the new rule is less burdensome on the regulated community than previous versions of the rule would have been, operators need to be mindful of potential pitfalls. The new rule appears to leave open the opportunity for MSHA to use operator examination records as “evidence” of a violation, or to support higher negligence findings. And of course the new requirements will provide MSHA with more bases to issue citations, since it will be a violation to not complete the various requirements under the new rule, including documentation of the date corrective action is completed for issues not promptly corrected.

MSHA is holding stakeholder meetings at six locations across the country to provide “outreach and compliance assistance materials on the Final Rule.” In addition, that Agency plans stakeholder meetings in Seattle, Washington, and at MSHA’s district offices by way of video teleconferencing at a later date.

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

By Brent I. Clark and Craig B. Simonsen

Seyfarth Synopsis: The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) recently released its results from a study conducted in 2016 and 2017 that looked at safety programs developed to prevent motor vehicle crashes.

The study included four focus groups conducted with thirty-three managers of employees that drive for work. The managers represented small businesses across four motor vehicle user groups: (1) first responders, (2) oil and gas workers, (3) light-vehicle drivers (e.g., workers who operate passenger vehicles for a variety of work purposes, such as salespeople, home health care workers, realtors, and food delivery workers), and (4) truck drivers.

NIOSH, in its Science Blog, related that vehicle crashes were a leading cause of workplace fatalities, with “1,252 deaths of vehicle drivers and passengers on public roads in 2016. In 2013, on-the-job crashes cost employers over $25 billion and led to 155,000 lost work days.”

The study found that the managers of truck and light vehicle drivers noted a range of minimal  approaches to safety, such as mandatory vehicle inspections. Of particular note on the topic of the effectiveness of training is that managers indicated that safety materials needed to be designed that take into account the limited time that they and their drivers can devote to safety training. “Drivers’ varied work schedules and intense workload limit opportunities for group discussions about roadway safety. Managers said they and their drivers prefer concise, highly visual, and interactive communication products, such as short videos and simulations.”

NIOSH concluded that despite the human and financial costs of crashes, safety programs developed to prevent motor vehicle crashes are unlikely to work unless they are designed with the employers’ needs and constraints in mind. “This is particularly true among smaller and midsize employers, which need additional resources and knowledge to be successful.”

For employers, it is important to have safety programs in place that protect company employees. Employers can be sure that, given a workplace accident, agency inspectors may well be reviewing the employer’s policy documents and training materials, and will likely interview the injured employee about her training and understanding of the materials.

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

By Joshua M. Henderson, Ilana R. Morady, Brent I. Clark, and Craig B. Simonsen

Seyfarth Synopsis:  On March 9, 2018, the California Office of Administrative Law approved the new regulation that will require hotels and other lodging establishments (such as resorts and bed and breakfast inns) to implement new requirements to protect employees who perform housekeeping tasks from any “musculoskeletal injury.” The regulation will take effect on July 1, 2018.

We previously blogged on the new regulation adopted by the Cal/OSHA Standards Board (OSHSB) on January 18, 2018. The new regulation–“Hotel Housekeeping Musculoskeletal Injury Prevention”–is intended to address a workplace hazard confronted by housekeepers, namely, a “musculoskeletal injury,” which is defined as “acute injury or cumulative trauma of a muscle, tendon, ligament, bursa, peripheral nerve, joint, bone, spinal disc or blood vessel.”

The regulation was petitioned for by the labor union UNITE HERE and contains several union-friendly provisions. The regulation will take effect on July 1, 2018.

Substantially, under the new rules California hotel and other lodging establishments industry employers will be required to update their written Injury and Illness Prevention Plan (IIPP) to incorporate the following:

  • Must have a Musculoskeletal Injury Prevention Program (MIPP) in addition to the IIPP. The MIPP may be a standalone policy or incorporated into the IIPP.
  • The MIPP must be “readily accessible” to employees to review during their work shift. An electronic copy is sufficient if there are “no barriers to employee access” as a result. No such requirement exists for IIPPs.
  • By October 1, 2018, effected employers must complete an initial worksite evaluation to identify and address potential injury risks to housekeepers. This worksite evaluation as well as subsequent evaluations (at least annually) “shall include an effective means of involving housekeepers and their union representative in designing and conducting the worksite evaluation.”
  • The MIPP’s procedures for investigating musculoskeletal injuries to a housekeeper must allow for input from the housekeeper’s union representative as to whether any measures, procedures, or tools would have prevented the injury.
  • Records of worksite evaluations and other records required by the MIPP must be made available to a Cal/OSHA inspector within 72 hours of a request. There is no 72-hour deadline under the IIPP regulation.

California hotel and other lodging establishments industry employers now have until October 1, 2018, to roll-out their Musculoskeletal Injury Prevention Programs.  These MIPPs must pass the muster of Cal/OSHA inspectors, including the ability to provide records of worksite evaluations and other records required by the MIPP to Cal/OSHA within 72 hours of a request.

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

By Jeryl L. Olson, Ilana R. Morady, and Craig B. Simonsen

Seyfarth Synopsis: EPA announces its proposal to streamline the regulation of hazardous waste aerosol cans by adding them to the list of materials that can be managed under the Universal Waste management system.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has issued a proposed rule that is intended to simplify the regulation of hazardous waste aerosol cans by adding them to the list of materials that can be managed under the Universal Waste management system under 40 CFR Part 273.  83 Fed. Reg. 11654 (March 16, 2018).  Some states, including California, Colorado, Minnesota, New Mexico, Texas, and Utah have already added aerosol cans to their Universal Waste lists. Adding aerosol cans to the list of Universal Wastes would ease the RCRA burden on generators in the two top economic sectors with the largest percentage of potentially affected entities, the retail trade industry and manufacturing.

Currently the U.S. EPA regulates nonempty aerosol cans as RCRA hazardous wastes in the same manner as other hazardous wastes; that is, hazardous waste aerosol cans are basically subject to the same requirements as drums of hazardous waste, including limitations on accumulation time  and volume, manifesting, disposal requirements, employee training, and response to releases.  That is, aerosol cans are regulated as hazardous waste when discarded, because propellant in the cans is flammable (i.e., a characteristic hazardous waste) and/or the contents of the cans contain P- or U- listed chemicals regulated as hazardous wastes. Aerosol cans can be excluded from the definition of hazardous waste, but only if they meet certain strict requirements.

Hazardous waste batteries, certain hazardous waste pesticides, mercury-containing equipment, and hazardous waste mercury lamps are already regulated as Universal Wastes. In general, materials managed as universal waste can be stored for 1 year or longer, and do not require a manifest when shipped, provided they are properly labeled, packaged and stored. Universal wastes also do not need to be counted toward a hazardous waste generator’s inventory for the purpose of determining whether the generator is classified as a very small quantity generator, small quantity generator, or large quantity generator.

While the rule is expected to be relief to the regulated community, the proposed rule raises nearly as many questions as it answers.  For instance, under the proposed rule, an aerosol can is defined as “an intact container in which gas under pressure is used to aerate and dispense any material through a valve in the form of a spray or foam.” It remains to be seen, therefore, whether this proposed definition would include items such as cans that dispense product without aerating (e.g. shaving gel).  Importantly, the proposed rule also creates uncertainty about when an aerosol can is “intact” or is “empty.”  This is a key issue because aerosol cans meeting the definition of “empty” are to be excluded from the Universal Waste rule, and the cans themselves would not be hazardous if recycled.

Currently, punctured, empty aerosol cans that are recycled are exempt from RCRA regulation if the puncturing is performed as part of a recycling process, and many companies have invested in can puncturing equipment to render aerosol cans “RCRA-empty” and thus, the cans (not the “drained contents”) are considered exempt from hazardous waste rules.  As suggested above, however, in the future, where puncturing and draining would render cans empty, they would not be subject to Universal Waste rules.  The issue of whether “puncturing” by the generator (versus the waste handler) is hazardous waste treatment can vary from state to state, and the proposed rule does not provide clarity for generators.

We will continue to monitor development of the proposed rule.

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 Team.

By Brent I. Clark, James L. Curtis, Patrick D. Joyce, and Craig B. Simonsen

Seyfarth Synopsis:  The Occupational Safety and Health Administration announced that it is pushing back the effective date of parts of the rule limiting workers’ exposure to beryllium until May, while it negotiates with manufacturers and groups that have sued over the rule.

In January 2017, OSHA issued new health standards addressing exposure to beryllium in all industries (the “Beryllium Rule”).  The general industry standard, 29 CFR 1910.1024, had an effective date of March 10, 2017.

Then in June 2017, OSHA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposing to revoke the ancillary provisions of the construction and shipyard standards, such as housekeeping and personal protective equipment requirements, but retain the new Beryllium Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) of 0.2 µg/m3 over an 8-hour TWA and short-term exposure limit (STEL) of 2.0 µg/m3 in a 15-minute period.

In response to feedback from stakeholders, the Agency is considering additional technical updates to the January 2017 general industry standard, which would clarify and simplify compliance with requirements.

In a recently-released interpretation memo, Delay of Enforcement of the Beryllium Standards under 29 CFR 1910.1024, 29 CFR 1915.1024, and 29 CFR 1926.1124, OSHA notes that it has been in settlement discussions with parties that filed legal actions challenging the general industry standard.  “In order to provide additional time to conclude those negotiations, we have decided to delay enforcement of the general industry standard by 60 days until May 11, 2018.”

“Furthermore, to ensure employers have adequate notice before OSHA begins enforcing them, as well as in the interest of uniform enforcement and clarity for employers, we have decided to also delay enforcement of the PEL and STEL in the construction and shipyard standards until May 11, 2018.  No other parts of the construction and shipyard beryllium standards will be enforced without additional notice.”

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

By Brent I. Clark, James L. Curtis, Ilana R. Morady, Patrick D. Joyce, Adam R. Young, and Daniel Birnbaum

Seyfarth Synopsis:  Here is today’s update from the presentations and room discussions at the ABA Occupational Safety and Health Law Committee’s 2018 Midwinter Meeting.

We continue to attend the ABA Occupational Safety and Health Law Meeting this week in Santa Monica, California.

A hot topic, discussed at today’s meeting, is sexual harassment in the workplace.  Panelists are discussing whether sexual harassment could constitute a serious workplace safety and health issue.  Studies show that pervasive harassment may manifest in physical symptoms in victimized employees.  The question becomes, when does sexual harassment evolve into workplace violence that presents OSHA liability?  There are currently no specific OSHA standards that address workplace violence or sexual harassment.  However, under the General Duty Clause of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, employers are required to provide their employees with a place of employment that is “free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious harm.”  As such, sexual harassment is on OSHA’s radar, and as more employees step forward, it is anticipated that more inspections will be opened from complaints.

The panel discussed specific industries, including healthcare, social services, hospitality, late night retail, construction, agriculture, and food processing, as those where sexual harassment as a workplace violence issue are statistically more likely.  OSHA will likely focus on these industries in evaluating future sexual harassment inspections.  As an example, the panel referenced a case in Region 3, where an inspection was opened when a pediatric services employee was sexually assaulted by a client’s father after complaints were made to the employer by other employees about the alleged abuser.  Companies should evaluate complaints and determine if sexual harassment in the workplace is foreseeable or preventable.

The panel also talked about efforts by local cities and industries that have made proactive steps to protect employees from sexual harassment.  As an example, Seattle, New York, and Chicago have all taken steps to provide hotel workers with “panic buttons” to help prevent attacks by hotel guests.  It is anticipated that these regulations will spread across the country, and span new industries as well.  Employers should stay aware of the newest regulations and industry practices to reduce the risk that employees will be harmed or that an OSHA inspection will be opened.

More to come from the conference tomorrow.…

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

By Brent I. Clark, James L. Curtis, Ilana R. Morady, Patrick D. Joyce, Adam R. Young, and Daniel Birnbaum

Seyfarth Synopsis:  Here is today’s update from the presentations and room discussions at the ABA Occupational Safety and Health Law Committee’s 2018 Midwinter Meeting.

We are attending the ABA Occupational Safety and Health Law Meeting this week in Santa Monica, California.  Present are representatives from the OSH Review Commission, the MSH Review Commission, and the Solicitor’s Office.

Ann Rosenthal, Associate Solicitor for the Occupational Safety and Health Division, delivered remarks from the Solicitor’s Office and stressed that the change in administrations would not lessen enforcement efforts by OSHA.  Ms. Rosenthal discussed highlights from the Solicitor’s Office from the last year that included cases involving workplace violence, fall protection, and criminal penalties for employers.  It is anticipated that the Department of Labor will continue to focus its efforts on prosecuting these types of cases.  Ms. Rosenthal also indicated, while responding to questions, that the new administration is considering eliminating regulations under the beryllium rule and record-keeping rule.

Tom Galassi, Director, Directorate of Enforcement of OSHA, is also here and discussed key enforcement initiatives. Generally, Mr. Galassi echoed the general tone of Ms. Rosenthal’s remarks, emphasizing that OSHA is not slowing down in its enforcement efforts.  Accordingly, Mr. Galassi covered rising penalties, which continue to sharply increase.  Mr. Galassi highlighted that severe injury reports also continue to rise steadily, up from 10,887 to 11,590 reports last year.  Additionally, Mr. Galassi discussed two standards that were recently updated and have begun to be enforced by OSHA – the silica standard and walking work surfaces standard.  Both standards implement substantial burdens on employers and create compliance issues that impacts employers in a wide array of industries.

Mr. Galassi also stressed OSHA’s increasing budget and goal to increase the agency’s reach.  To that end the agency added over 70 employees last year comprised of enforcement and compliance personnel.  As such, employers should be sufficiently prepared for enforcement efforts that will continue to rise from these additional resources.

More to come from the conference tomorrow.…

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

By Adam R. Young, James L. Curtis, and Craig B. Simonsen

Seyfarth Synopsis:  OSHA may refuse to allow its compliance officers to testify in civil tort proceedings.

In a personal injury action (associated with an accident that resulted in an OSHA inspection), a trucking company sought to compel the deposition testimony of two OSHA compliance officers because the accident was the genesis of the tort litigation.  The plaintiff sought to recover for injuries allegedly sustained by the an individual who “was working on a traffic light in a bucket above traffic … when a tractor trailer … struck the bucket following which [the individual] fell from the bucket to the ground.” Watsontown Trucking Co. v. U.S. DOL, 26 OSHC 2166 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 17, 2018).

The District Court explained that OSHA had determined that “one of the chief causal factors of the accident [was] the lack of warning devices” surrounding the raised bucket in which the individual was working.  The trucking company served subpoenas on OSHA’s compliance officers that conducted the inspection, directing them to appear for depositions.  OSHA objected and refused to allow its compliance officers to be deposed.

OSHA argued that its obligation only required it to “weigh the party’s need for the testimony [or documents] against the adverse effects on [OSHA’s] concerns,” which include “centralizing the dissemination of information of the agency (e.g. restricting investigators from expressing opinions on policy matters), minimizing governmental involvement in controversial matters unrelated to official business and avoiding the expenditure of government time and money for private purposes.”

The Court reviewed OSHA’s denial of the deposition request because it was a “final agency action for which there is no other adequate remedy,” and therefore was ripe for judicial review. 5 U.S.C. § 704.  The Court held that OSHA’s denial of the deposition testimony was “not based on impermissible considerations, was not ‘arbitrary [or] capricious,’ and did not violate the APA.”

Accordingly, this case upholds OSHA’s right to refuse to allow its compliance officers to testify in civil proceedings.

For more information on this or any related topic please contact the author, your Seyfarth attorney, or any member of the OSHA Compliance, Enforcement & Litigation Team.