Enforcement

South Carolina is defending its latest challenge to OSHA’s mandate for states to match annual increases to federal minimum and maximum OSH Act penalties, arguing courts should not force it to “bet the farm” by provoking an enforcement action before suing over the policy, and that time spent on a prior case should not count against the statute of limitations.

A federal appeals court has rejected an Ohio construction company’s claims that OSHA unfairly cited it for safety and training violations after a 2018 incident where a crane arm fell and struck a worker, holding that the agency’s allegations were supported by “substantial evidence” and that the employer had “fair notice” of the claims against it.

OSHA is asking a federal district court to dismiss South Carolina’s latest challenge to the agency’s yet-unenforced requirement for states to raise their maximum penalties for workplace health and safety violations to match federal levels, saying the case was filed too late and fails to show any harm from the policy, among other flaws.

OSHA is rejecting construction-sector criticism of its National Emphasis Program (NEP) on heat-related illness that said the initiative risks creating unclear mandates worker protection, with the agency arguing that its initiative merely seeks to enforce the OSH Act’s general duty clause (GDC) and vowing to continue providing compliance assistance to employers.

Industry attorneys are questioning OSHA’s plan to soon issue an interim final rule (IFR) that the agency says will provide “clarity” on its use of subpoenas but which one attorney says may include major changes to the process without a notice and comment period.

OSHA is urging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit to uphold a trench-safety citation over violations that a Texas contracting firm claims were the result of “unpreventable employee misconduct,” arguing that the employer has failed to show it uses effective safety monitoring or enforcement and thus should be barred from invoking that defense.

An employer-focused attorney says OSHA’s recent enforcement action against Amazon over a failure to provide “adequate medical treatment” to warehouse workers signals that the agency could more broadly use medical management of workplace injuries as a way around its lack of a formal standard on workplace ergonomics.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is set to consider how strictly OSHA can apply its fall-protection standard in a construction company’s appeal of an enforcement case that has so far focused on how workers should apply the rule’s mandate to wear protective gear when crossing a height difference over 2 feet.

OSHA has unveiled its latest warehouse-safety citation against Amazon, this time alleging that the retail giant failed to provide “adequate medical treatment” for employees with traumatic and chronic injuries at a fulfillment facility in Castleton, NY -- which the agency says is just one of 20 open investigations into the firm’s workplaces.

OSHA is beginning a new enforcement national emphasis program (NEP) aimed at preventing on-the-job falls -- which the agency notes is the leading cause of fatal workplace accidents -- and improving compliance with the fall protection standard.