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.

1993 (29 U.S.C. 2613) or such requirements under State family and medical leave laws; (4) where an employer purchases documents that are commercially and publicly available (including newspapers, magazines, periodicals, and books, but not including medical databases or court records) that include family medical history; (5) where the information involved is to be used for genetic monitoring of the biological effects of toxic substances in the workplace, but only if– (A) the employer provides written notice of the genetic monitoring to the employee; (B)(i) the employee provides prior, knowing, voluntary, and written authorization; or (ii) the genetic monitoring is required by Federal or State law; (C) the employee is informed of individual monitoring results; (D) the monitoring is in compliance with– (i) any Federal genetic monitoring regulations, including any such regulations that may be promulgated by the Secretary of Labor pursuant to the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.), the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), or the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.); or (ii) State genetic monitoring regulations, in the case of a State that is implementing genetic monitoring regulations under the authority of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.); and (E) the employer, excluding any licensed health care professional or board certified genetic counselor that is involved in the genetic monitoring program, receives the results of the monitoring only in aggregate terms that do not disclose the identity of specific employees; or (6) where the employer conducts DNA analysis for law enforcement purposes as a forensic laboratory or for purposes of human remains identification, and requests or requires genetic information of such employer’s employees, but only to the extent that such genetic information is used for analysis of DNA identification markers for quality control to detect sam

gulates pertinent aspects of the workplace condition at issue.A particularized inquiry is required to determine whether FAA jurisdiction preempts OSHA’s with respect to specific workplace activities of ground personnel.About Our AuthorPaul Alp is the co-leader of the Adams and Reese Aviation and Aerospace Team. His practice, spanning more than 25 years, lies at the intersection of aviation regulatory, legal, and technical issues. Paul represents and advises airlines, manufacturers, repair stations, on-demand operators, technology companies, insurers, commercial space companies, corporate flight departments, and uncrewed aircraft companies on international and domestic aviation and aerospace issues. He provides a full range of advice on compliance, operations, safety, risk management, licensing, certification,Notes[1] Flight Safety Foundation, Ground Accident Prevention (GAP), available at flightsafety.org/toolkits-resources/past-safety-initiatives/ground-accident-prevention-gap.[2]See 29 U.S.C. § 651 et seq.[3] 29 U.S.C. § 653(b)(1).[4]Secretary of Labor v. Henry Marine Serv., Inc., 2019 WL 1977302 at *3 - *4 (OSHRC Mar. 12, 2019), citing Tidewater Pacific Inc., 17 BNA OSHC 1920, 1923 (No. 93-2529, 1997) and Chao v. Mallard Bay Drilling, Inc., 534 U.S. 235 (2002).[5]See 49 U.S.C. § 44701.[6] In the event of such a flow down to a non-certificated contractor, the airline retains responsibility for performance from an FAA regulatory perspective (e.g., in the event of a noncompliance caused by the contractor, the FAA would pursue enforcement action against the airline and not the contractor).[7] Notice, Occupational Safety or Health Standards for Aircraft Crewmembers, 40 Fed. Reg. 29,114 (July 10, 1975).[8]Id.[9]See Notice of Public Meeting and Request for Comments, Occupational Safety and Health Issues for Airline Employees, 63 Fed. Reg. 56,275 - 56,276 (Oct. 19, 1999).[10] Memorandum of Understanding between the FAA and OSHA, Safety and Health in the Aviation Industry (August 7, 200

Indeed, although Congress has enacted significant legislation addressing the COVID–19 pandemic, it has declined to enact any measure similar to what OSHA has promulgated here.”The Court reiterated that Occupational Safety and Health Act, 29 U.S.C. § 651, et seq., authorizes OSHA to promulgate standards that are “reasonably necessary or appropriate to provide safe or healthful employment.” §652(8) (emphasis in opin.).

The statute generally charges OSHA with “as­sur[ing] so far as possible . . . safe and healthful working conditions.” 29 U. S. C. §651(b). That provision authorizes regulation to protect employees from all hazards present in the workplace—or, at least, all hazards in part created by conditions there.

The Sixth Circuit denied en banc review, whereupon certain applicants asked the Supreme Court to stay the Secretary's ETS.The Court's DecisionThe Court, in a 6-3 decision, ruled that those challenging the ETS are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that the Secretary of Labor lacked authority under the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act) to impose the mandate. 29 U.S.C. § 651 et seq. The Court focused on the "significant encroachment into the lives – and health – of a vast number of employees."

Most significantly, the EEOC’s guide expressly provides that the COVID-19 pandemic meets the direct threat standard based on guidance from the CDC and public health authorities. In other words, an employer’s failure to provide reasonable accommodations to a person more susceptible to COVID-19 will likely not give rise to a violation of the ADA.In addition to the ADA, employers in general are subject to the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSHA), 29 USC 651 et seq., which sets forth health and safety standards to protect workers from workplace hazards. Under 29 USC 667(b), each state may develop an occupational safety and health plan that is at least as effective as the federal plan.

However, in the current environment, all employers must take extra steps to ensure employee safety. 29 U.S.C. § 651 et seq. 29 U.S.C. § 654. Cal. Labor Code § 6404.5. OSHA 3990-03 2020. See, cases collected at "Violation of OSHA Regulation as Affecting Tort Liability," 79 A.L.R.3d 962 (1980 and 2020 Supplement).

” Order at p., 16.As to the important issue of delay, the Court held that plaintiffs could rely on OSHA’s statutory framework. “Section 662(a) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (“the Act”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 651 et seq., permits the Secretary of Labor to petition the court ‘to restrain any [dangerous] conditions or practices in any place of employment . . . which could reasonably be expected to cause death or serious physical harm immediately or before the imminence of such danger can be eliminated through the enforcement procedures otherwise provided by [the Act].’” Order at p., 16.The Court further explained that upon the filing of such petition, “the district court shall have jurisdiction to grant such injunctive relief or temporary restraining order pending the outcome of an enforcement proceeding.” Order at pp., 16-17.

pdf[5]United States of America v. KTX Ltd., Cause No. 1:16-CR-75 (Eastern Dist. of Tex. Beaumont Division, 2016).[6] 29 USC §651(b).[7] A knowing violation of a Federal Operating Permit at another facility was also alleged based on facts unrelated to the explosion.