A broad coalition of employers is arguing that OSHA’s rule allowing employee representatives to participate in enforcement “walkarounds” outside of their own work sites violates multiple statutes and Constitutional doctrines, in their first formal bid for a federal court to overturn the policy.
OSHA and Dollar General have agreed to settle a years-long enforcement suit over claims of widespread unsafe conditions such as faulty emergency exits at the discount retail chain, including a $12 million monetary penalty and commitments from the company to improve worker protections across its stores.
Legal experts are warning that the Supreme Court’s recent decision holding that defendants are entitled to jury trials when contesting Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC) administrative enforcement actions seeking civil penalties could tee up challenges to many agencies’ programs, and potentially make them less aggressive even if those suits do not succeed.
Chemical-sector groups suing EPA over its rule overhauling the requirements for TSCA risk evaluations of existing chemicals are previewing broad arguments that the rule is unlawful or even unconstitutional, though they are not yet naming specific provisions they will seek to overturn.
An employer attorney says the Supreme Court’s reversal of its long-standing Chevron deference doctrine bolsters the odds that a court will reverse OSHA’s new rule governing employee representatives’ roles in inspection walkarounds and will encourage the targets of enforcement actions to challenge whatever standards the agency cites them for violating.
The Supreme Court will not take up an employer’s suit that claimed OSH Act provisions giving OSHA authority to craft long-term safety standards as “appropriate” are unconstitutional, denying a bid to drastically expand the “nondelegation” doctrine limiting Congress’ ability to grant agencies rulemaking discretion.
The Supreme Court has held that the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) does not require lawsuits over OSHA and other agencies’ rules and “final agency action” to begin within six years of their promulgation but rather within six years of when a party was first injured by a particular policy -- a precedent that could open the door for a “tsunami” of wide-ranging challenges to long-settled policies.
The Supreme Court has overruled its 40-year-old Chevron doctrine granting deference to OSHA and other agencies’ interpretations of ambiguous statutory language, scrapping a principle that was the basis for countless decisions on the lawfulness of agency rules, guidance and other actions.
The Supreme Court has adopted a new, stringent standard for regulatory agencies to justify sending enforcement actions to administrative law judges (ALJs) for review rather than federal courts, but the majority appears to hold up the OSH Act as an example of a law that passes its test, signaling that OSHA could avoid major impacts from the precedent.
The industry coalition suing EPA over its controversial update to the risk management program (RMP) says it will ask a federal appellate court to scrap four aspects of the rule in particular -- those that mandate third-party audits, “safer technology” analyses, public transparency, and adoption of new “generally accepted” engineering practices.