Cases by Issue - Occupational Safety and Health Act

Chao v. Mallard Bay Drilling, Inc.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:46:17 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

00-927

Petitioner

Chao

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Mallard Bay Drilling, Inc.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

534 U.S. 235 (2002)

Argued

Wednesday, October 31, 2001

Decided

Wednesday, January 9, 2002

Advocates

Patrick J. Veters (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Matthew D. Roberts (Department of Justice, argued the cause for the petitioner)

Facts of the Case

In 1997, an explosion on board Mallard Bay Drilling Rig 52, a oil and gas exploration barge, killed or injured several workers while the barge was drilling a well in Louisiana's territorial waters. The Coast Guard's subsequent investigation did not accuse Mallard of anything, but did note that the barge was not an "inspected vessel" subject to comprehensive Coast Guard regulation. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) then cited Mallard for violations of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (Act) of 1970. Mallard challenged OSHA's jurisdiction to issue the citations on the grounds that Rig 52 was not a "workplace" under section 4(a) of the Act and that section 4(b)(1) of the Act pre-empted OSHA jurisdiction because the Coast Guard had exclusive authority to prescribe and enforce occupational safety and health standards on vessels such as Rig 52. Rejecting both arguments, an Administrative Law Judge found that Rig 52 was a "workplace" under the Act and held that the Coast Guard had not pre-empted OSHA's jurisdiction. In reversing, the Court of Appeals held that the Coast Guard's exclusive jurisdiction over the regulation of seamen's working conditions aboard vessels such as Rig 52 precluded OSHA's regulation under section 4(b)(1), and that this pre-emption encompassed both inspected and uninspected vessels.

Question

Does the Occupational Safety and Health Administration have jurisdiction under the Occupational Safety and Health Act to issue citations to uninspected vessels, which are subject to minimal Coast Guard regulation?

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Chao, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Occupational Safety and Health

Yes. In an 8-0 opinion delivered by Justice John Paul Stevens, the Court held that OSHA had jurisdiction under the Act to issue the citations. The Court reasoned that section 4(b)(1) did not pre-empt, in favor of Coast Guard jurisdiction, OSHA jurisdiction over the barge, as the Coast Guard had not exercised its authority over the barge because the Guard has neither affirmatively regulated the working conditions at issue, nor asserted comprehensive regulatory jurisdiction over working conditions on uninspected vessels. "Mere possession by another federal agency of unexercised authority to regulate certain working conditions is insufficient to displace OSHA's jurisdiction," wrote Justice Stevens. Justice Antonin Scalia took no part in the decision of this case.

Martin v. Oshrc

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:16:33 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

89-1541

Petitioner

Martin

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Oshrc

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1990-1991)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1990-1991)

Opinion

499 U.S. 144 (1991)

Argued

Tuesday, November 27, 1990

Decided

Wednesday, March 20, 1991

Advocates

Clifford M. Sloan (on behalf of the Petitioner)

John D. Faught (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Martin, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Occupational Safety and Health

None

American Textile Mfrs. Inst. v. Donovan

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:28:45 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-1429

Petitioner

American Textile Mfrs. Inst.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Donovan

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 79-1583

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

452 U.S. 490 (1981)

Argued

Wednesday, January 21, 1981

Decided

Wednesday, June 17, 1981

Advocates

George H. Cohen (on behalf of the Union respondents)

Robert H. Bork (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Kenneth S. Geller (on behalf of the Respondent Marshall)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for American Textile Mfrs. Inst., 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Occupational Safety and Health

None

Whirlpool Corp. v. Marshall

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:10:54 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-1870

Petitioner

Whirlpool Corp.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Marshall

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

445 U.S. 1 (1980)

Argued

Wednesday, January 9, 1980

Decided

Tuesday, February 26, 1980

Advocates

Robert E. Mann (on behalf of the petitioner)

Wade H. McCree (on behalf of the respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Marshall, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Occupational Safety and Health

None

Industrial Union Dept. v. Amer. Petroleum Inst.

Mon, 20 Jun 2011 04:06:14 +0000

Location

U.S. Department of Labor

"200 Constitution Ave.**** NW" Washington DC 20210

Washington, DC 20210

United States

38° 53' 31.4232" N, 77° 0' 49.1184" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-911

Petitioner

Industrial Union Dept.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Amer. Petroleum Inst.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 78-1036

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

448 U.S. 607 (1980)

Argued

Wednesday, October 10, 1979

Decided

Wednesday, July 2, 1980

Advocates

George H. Cohen (Argued the cause for Industrial Union Dept)

Charles F. Lettow (Argued the cause for the respondents, Rubber Manufacturers Association, Inc., in both cases)

Edward W. Warren (Argued the cause for the respondent, American Petroleum Institute, in both cases)

William Alsup (Argued the cause for the petitioner, Marshall, in 78-1036)

Facts of the Case

Acting under authority of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, the Secretary of Labor, after having demonstrated a link between exposure to benzene and leukemia, set a standard reducing the airborne concentrations of benzene to which workers could be exposed. The standard reduced the allowable amount from 10 parts per million (ppm) to one ppm. This case was decided together with Marshall v. American Petroleum Institute.

Question

Did the Secretary exceed his authority to set standards?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Amer. Petroleum Inst., 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Occupational Safety and Health

Yes. The Court agreed with the Court of Appeals that the Secretary had acted without knowledge that the new standard was necessary to "provide safe and healthful employment" as mandated by the Act. Nothing in OSHA's administrative record indicated that exposure to benzene at 10 ppm would cause leukemia and that exposure to one ppm would not. Since the Secretary had not made a threshold finding that exposure to 10 ppm posed significant health risks, he was powerless to promulgate the new standard.