By Brent I. Clark, Adam R. Young, Matthew A. Sloan, and Craig B. Simonsen

Seyfarth Synopsis: Fifth Circuit rules on Title VII liability concerning workplace violence in a healthcare setting involving third parties. Gardner v. CLC of Pascagoula, No. 17-60072 (5th Cir. February 6, 2019).

A recent decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit highlights the risks posed to employers in the healthcare and social assistance industries by uncorrected or unaddressed customer-on-employee violence.

Fifth Circuit Reverses Lower Court’s Summary Judgment Ruling

Gardner involves a nurse who alleged that an assisted living facility allowed a hostile work environment to be created by nonemployees by not preventing a resident’s repetitive harassment. The plaintiff, a Certified Nursing Assistant, “often worked with patients who were either physically combative or sexually aggressive.”

The Court explains that under 29 C.F.R. § 1604.11(e)—one of Title VII’s sexual harassment provisions— “an employer may . . . be responsible for the acts of non-employees, with respect to sexual harassment of employees in the workplace, where the employer (or its agents or supervisory employees) knows or should have known of the conduct and fails to take immediate and appropriate corrective action.”

Gardner’s experiences with one patient at the CLC facility rose to a new, dangerous level. According to the Court, “[the patient] J.S. was an elderly resident who lived at Plaza between 2006 and 2014. He had a reputation for groping female employees and becoming physically aggressive when reprimanded. J.S. had been diagnosed with a variety of physical and mental illnesses including dementia, traumatic brain injury, personality disorder with aggressive behavior, and Parkinson’s Disease.” J.S. had a long history of violent and sexual behavior toward both patients and staff at the facility.

Gardner refused to care for J.S. again due to the continued harassment, and asked to be reassigned. Her request was denied. She ended up going to the emergency room for injuries she sustained at the hands of J.S., and did not return to work for three months. Shortly after her return, she was fired.

In reversing the district court, which had concluded that a hostile workplace did not exist, the Fifth Circuit held that the “evidence of persistent and often physical harassment by J.S. is enough to allow a jury to decide whether a reasonable caregiver on the receiving end of the harassment would have viewed it as sufficiently severe or pervasive even considering the medical condition of the harasser.”

Customer-on-Employee Violence in the OSHA Context

Federal OSHA currently enforces workplace violence via the General Duty Clause, under which OSHA requires employers to take affirmative steps to protect their employees. Significantly, and unsurprisingly, OSHA has also considered whether to commence rulemaking proceedings on a new standard for preventing workplace violence in healthcare and social assistance workplaces perpetrated by patients and clients. Prevention of Workplace Violence in Healthcare and Social Assistance, 81 Fed. Reg. 88147 (December 7, 2016).

Additionally, note also that California healthcare employers are currently regulated under the Violence Protection in Health Care standard, and are required, as of April 1, 2018, to comply with those provisions for implementing a Violence Prevention Plan and for training their employees.

Workplace violence may affect numerous healthcare and social assistance workplaces, including psychiatric facilities, hospital emergency departments, community mental health clinics, treatment clinics for substance abuse disorders, pharmacies, community-care facilities, residential facilities and long-term care facilities. Professions affected by the proposed rulemaking include physicians, registered nurses, pharmacists, nurse practitioners, physicians’ assistants, nurses’ aides, therapists, technicians, public health nurses, home healthcare workers, social and welfare workers, security personnel, maintenance personnel, and emergency medical care personnel.

According to OSHA, workers in the Health Care and Social Assistance sector (NAICS 62) face a substantially increased risk of injury due to workplace violence. In 2014 data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (BLS) Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses (SOII), workers in this sector experienced workplace-violence-related injuries at an estimated incidence rate of 8.2 per 10,000 full time workers, over 4 times higher than the rate of 1.7 per 10,000 workers in the private sector overall. Individual portions of the healthcare sector have much higher rates. Psychiatric hospitals have incidence rates over 64 times higher than private industry as a whole, and nursing and residential care facilities have rates 11 times higher than those for private industry as a whole. In 2014, 79 percent of serious violent incidents reported by employers in healthcare and social assistance settings were caused by interactions with patients.

State and Federal OSHA has clearly been keeping an eye on this industry and these incident rates. For instance, in August 2016 we blogged about how “NIOSH Offers Free Training Program to Help Employers Address Safety Risks Faced by Home Healthcare Workers,” in December 2015 we noted that “OSHA Issues “Strategies and Tools” to “Help Prevent” Workplace Violence in the Healthcare Setting,” in July 2015 we blogged that “Healthcare Employers to Get Even More Attention from OSHA,” and in April 2015 we blogged that “OSHA Updates Workplace Violence Guidance for Protecting Healthcare and Social Service Workers.” Also, this action follows on “CA Nears Adoption of New Workplace Violence Regulations for Health Care Employers, Home Health Providers, and Emergency Responders.”

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

By Mark A. Lies, II,  Brent I. ClarkAdam R. Young, and Craig B. Simonsen

Seyfarth Synopsis: OSHA has just issued a Standard Interpretation clarifying the Obama-era guidance that prohibited incentive programs and circumscribed post-incident drug testing; “Clarification of OSHA’s Position on Workplace Safety Incentive Programs and Post-Incident Drug Testing Under 29 C.F.R. §1904.35(b)(1)(iv).”

We previously blogged about OSHA’s 2016 retaliation regulation and associated guidance, which had explained examples of post-accident drug-testing and safety incentive as instances of unlawful retaliation.  OSHA’s 2016 retaliation rule left employers uncertain about what programs were permissible and whether they would face citations for long-standing safety programs aimed at encouraging safe behaviors and reducing injury rates.

  1. OSHA’s Revised Perspective is Apparent in the New Standard Interpretation

OSHA’s new Standard Interpretation intends to “to clarify the Department’s position that [the rule] does not prohibit workplace safety incentive programs or post-incident drug testing. The Department believes that many employers who implement safety incentive programs and/or conduct post-incident drug testing do so to promote workplace safety and health.” The Interpretation explains that “evidence that the employer consistently enforces legitimate work rules (whether or not an injury or illness is reported) would demonstrate that the employer is serious about creating a culture of safety, not just the appearance of reducing rates.”

Post-incident drug testing policies and safety incentive programs will be considered retaliatory and unlawful only where they seek “to penalize an employee for reporting a work-related injury or illness rather than for the legitimate purpose of promoting workplace safety and health.” Properly formulated and lawful post-incident drug testing policies and safety incentive programs will be permitted and will not result in OSHA citations.

  1. OSHA Permits Consistent Post-Incident Drug Testing Policies

For years, OSHA’s position on post-incident drug testing confounded employers, and employers faced complicated questions in the hours following workplace safety incidents. The Standard Interpretation clarifies that “most instances of workplace drug testing are permissible,” including:

  • “Random drug testing”;
  • “Drug testing unrelated to the reporting of a work-related injury or illness”;
  • “Drug testing under a state workers’ compensation law”;
  • “Drug testing under other federal law, such as a U.S. Department of Transportation rule”; and
  • “Drug testing to evaluate the root cause of a workplace incident that harmed or could have harmed employees.  If the employer chooses to use drug testing to investigate the incident, the employer should test all employees whose conduct could have contributed to the incident, not just employees who reported injuries.”

Accordingly, employers may lawfully implement, random drug testing programs, DOT drug testing programs, drug testing programs under a Collective Bargaining Agreement, and post-incident (also “post-accident”) drug-testing programs. Post-incident drug testing should be conducted consistently on any employee whose conduct may have contributed to the accident, and not merely the employee who was injured in an accident. For example, if a forklift operator collides with a pedestrian and injures the pedestrian, both the operator and pedestrian should be drug tested. OSHA reiterates that employers may not use a post-injury drug testing program, which the Agency views as retaliatory and also exposes employers to worker’s compensation retaliation tort claims.

3.         OSHA Permits Safety Incentive Programs

The Standard Interpretation reverses course on the 2016 retaliation regulation’s prohibition of safety programs. With limited adjustments, OSHA now permits employers to bring back reporting-based safety programs, which the Standard Interpretation lauds as an “important tool to promote workplace safety and health.” The Standard Interpretation permits a program which offers a prize or bonus at the end of an injury-free month. OSHA’s new position thus permits employers to bring back cash bonuses or the much-maligned monthly pizza party. The Standard Interpretation also permits programs that evaluate managers based on their work unit’s lack of injuries.

However, to lawfully implement such a safety program, the employer must implement “adequate precautions” to ensure that employees feel free to report an injury or illness and are not discouraged from reporting. According to OSHA, a mere statement that employees are encouraged to report and will not face retaliation is insufficient. Employers need to undertake their choice of additional “adequate precautions,” such as:

  • “An incentive program that rewards employees for identifying unsafe conditions in the workplace;”
  • “A training program for all employees to reinforce reporting rights and responsibilities and emphasizes the employer’s non-retaliation policy;” or
  • “A mechanism for accurately evaluating employees’ willingness to report injuries and illnesses.”

The Standard Interpretation thus permits and encourages safety incentive programs that reward employees for identifying unsafe conditions in the workplace. A second precaution, a brief training on reporting illnesses and injuries, would be simple for employers to conduct and add to onboarding for new hires. The “mechanism for accurately evaluating employees willingness to report” could be a regularly scheduled, random questionnaire on employee willingness to report injuries and illnesses. Accordingly, if employers adopt these low-burden precautionary measures, they may bring back or now adopt safety programs that are popular and effective at reducing workplace injury rates.

For related information on drug testing requirements, we had blogged on the recent Department of Transportation (DOT) final rule amending its drug testing program for DOT-regulated employers.

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 TeamLabor & Employment, or the Workplace Policies and Handbooks Teams.

 

By Ilana R. Morady and Jaclyn A. Gross

Seyfarth Synopsis: The Sixth Circuit recently upheld an administrative decision in favor of a miner’s whistleblower complaint, further underscoring the need for mine operators to implement strong anti-retaliation policies and keep detailed supporting records of internal investigations and employment-related decisions.

The Federal Mine Safety and Health Act (Mine Act) was originally enacted in 1977 to promote safe mining operations. Pursuant to Section 105(c) of the Mine Act, miners who believe they were terminated as a result of voicing their health or safety concerns can file a discrimination complaint with the Secretary of Labor. Recently, the Sixth Circuit ruled in Con-Ag, Inc. v. Sec’y of Labor, et al., to uphold a decision stating that Con-Ag violated Section 105(c) when it terminated one of its employees. The Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission declined to review the case, making the decision of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) the final decision of the Commission. The ALJ found that the employee was discharged in retaliation for reporting health and safety concerns to the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), the body that enforces the safety and health standards of mining operations.

A miner can establish a case of discrimination by showing that (1) he or she engaged in protected activity and (2) was subject to an adverse employment action that was at least partially motivated by that protected activity. “Protected activity” is defined broadly and includes filing complaints of alleged unsafe conditions to supervisors or the MSHA, refusing to work in unsafe conditions, requesting specific equipment or training, and participating in proceedings related to the Mine Act. Discriminatory behavior encompasses termination and demotion, but can also refer to being transferred to a less desirable position or to a reduction in pay or benefits. As discriminatory motive is difficult to prove using direct evidence, four factors are generally considered when determining whether the adverse employment action was connected to the protected activity: (1) the mine operator’s knowledge of the protected activity, (2) the operator’s hostility towards that activity, (3) the timing of the adverse action in relation to that activity, and (4) the operator’s disparate treatment of the miner.

Con-Ag conceded that the employee engaged in a protected activity when he spoke with MSHA investigators about working conditions in the mine, however it claimed that he was fired for threatening the company’s owner/manager during a conversation with a co-worker. Despite lack of direct evidence of hostility towards the employee, the ALJ found the elements of knowledge and timing to be persuasive, thus supporting her broader conclusion that “discrimination was at least one of the causes of [the employee’s] discharge.”

In response to Mine Act claims, mine operators can establish an affirmative defense by showing either that the adverse employment action was not related to the protected activity or that the action was related, but the company would have taken the same action even if the miner had not engaged in protected activity. The ALJ rejected Con-Ag’s defense as implausible and found that its asserted reason for the termination was pretextual, in large part due to the cursory nature of Con-Ag’s investigation prior to the employee’s discharge. The company never interviewed the employee and there was nothing in the record showing a history of violence, threatening behavior, or discipline whatsoever. The ALJ found that these oversights undermined Con-Ag’s argument that it would have fired the employee despite his involvement in protected activity.

In addition to upholding the ALJ’s findings, the Circuit Court denied Con-Ag’s request for review regarding back pay calculations and the order to reinstate the employee to his prior position. Con-Ag did not submit evidence pertaining to the calculations to the ALJ, but instead first raised its objection to the amount upon appeal, which the Circuit Court ruled unacceptable. With regard to reinstatement, Con-Ag claimed it was unable to comply due to the fact that it no longer owned the mine and that the employee did not wish to be reinstated. The Circuit Court held that Con-Ag failed to present sufficient proof that it no longer owned the mine and that the employee is free to decline the position.

Key Take Aways

In short, this case demonstrates the importance for mine operators to ensure that members of management are familiar with Section 105(c) and to have anti-retaliation policies in place. More specifically, those in management positions should recognize protected activity and be trained to respond appropriately when it arises. Moreover, mine operators should keep complete records of safety-related incidents and complaints in the event an MSHA investigation occurs.

For more information on this topic, please contact the authors, your Seyfarth attorney, or a member of the Firm’s Workplace Safety and Health (OSHA/MSHA) TeamWorkplace Counseling & Solutions Team, or the Workplace Policies and Handbooks Team.

 

 

By James L. CurtisDaniel Birnbaum, and Craig B. Simonsen

Seyfarth Synopsis: NIOSH reiterated last week that healthcare workers are exposed to a wide range of hazards on the job and healthcare employers may not be following best practices to protect against these hazards.

Healthcare is the fastest-growing sector of the U.S. economy, employing over 18 million workers, 80% of which are women.  These healthcare workers face numerous hazards on the job, including sharps injuries, exposures to chemicals and hazardous drugs, musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs), latex allergy, violence, and stress.

Significantly, there are more cases of healthcare workers suffering nonfatal occupational injury and illnesses than any other industry sector.  In a recent healthcare study, NIOSH found that as to administering aerosolized pentamidine to patients “22% of respondents did not always wear protective gloves, 69% did not always wear protective gowns, and 49% did not always wear respiratory protection….”  NIOSH concluded that there was “a belief that employers do not fully appreciate the potential adverse health effects associated with exposure to these drugs and therefore do not prioritize adherence.”

As to high-level disinfectants, the survey findings showed that best practices to minimize exposure have not been universally implemented.  NIOSH’s survey found that “17% of respondents said they never received training and, of those who received training, 42% said that it was more than 12 months ago.  19% of respondents said that employer safe handling procedures were unavailable.”  “44% of respondents did not always wear a protective gown and 9% did not always wear protective gloves.”

Critically, NIOSH concluded that employers and employees did not always follow best practices.

For healthcare employers this conclusion should be a red-flag as to the overall quality of their safety and health policies.  Healthcare employers should consult with safety professionals who are well versed in the areas where the employers may be out of touch with best practices.  Such consultations can enhance employee safety and help avoid liabilities associated with OSHA violations.

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

By Brent I. Clark, Adam R. Young, and Craig B. Simonsen

Seyfarth Synopsis: OSHA has recently updated and published its enforcement procedures for occupational exposure to workplace violence.  The procedures explain and lay out the elements of an OSHA General Duty Clause violation, as well as NIOSH’s guidance for determining the potential for workplace violence.

OSHA defines “workplace violence” as an act or threat of physical violence, harassment, intimidation, or other threatening disruptive behavior that occurs at the work site.  It ranges from threats and verbal abuse to physical assaults, or homicide.  It can involve employees, clients, customers, and visitors.  In addition, OSHA asserts that nearly two million American workers report being victims of workplace violence each year.  According to OSHA: “unfortunately, many more cases go unreported.”

To assist the Agency and its Certified Safety and Health Official (CSHO) inspectors in assessing and citing instances of workplace violence, OSHA has recently released its updated Enforcement Procedures and Scheduling for Occupational Exposure to Workplace Violence, OSHA Directive CPL 02-01-058 (January 10, 2017).  The Directive was last updated in 2011.

The Directive lays out the elements of a General Duty Clause violation, including:

  • The employer failed to keep the workplace free of a hazard to which employees of that employer were exposed;
  • The hazard was recognized;
  • The hazard was causing or was likely to cause death or serious physical harm; and
  • There was a feasible and useful method to correct the hazard.

The Directive also lists “known risk factors”, which “shall be considered in determining whether to inspect a worksite, [but which] none of them would individually trigger an inspection.” The risk factors are: contact with the public; exchange of money; delivery of passengers, goods, or services; having a mobile workplace such as a taxicab; working with persons in healthcare, social service, or criminal justice settings; working alone or in small numbers; working late at night or during early morning hours; working in high-crime areas; guarding valuable property or possessions; working in community-based settings, such as drug rehabilitation centers and group homes.

How Can Workplace Violence Hazards be Reduced?

OSHA indicates that “in most workplaces where risk factors can be identified,” the risk of assault can be prevented or minimized if employers take appropriate precautions. It suggests that one of the best protections is a zero-tolerance policy toward workplace violence.  The policy, OSHA advises, should cover all workers, patients, clients, visitors, contractors, and anyone else who may come in contact with company personnel.

By assessing worksites, employers can identify methods for reducing the likelihood of incidents occurring. “OSHA believes that a well-written and implemented workplace violence prevention program, combined with engineering controls, administrative controls and training can reduce the incidence of workplace violence in both the private sector and federal workplaces.”

Employers seeking to address this topic in the company’s employee handbook or policy documents should do so carefully, as in the event of an incident, this will be one of the first company documents requested and received by an inspector.

On the enforcement side, we note that OSHA continues to issue citations under the General Duty Clause for alleged workplace violence hazards. However, all of these citations follow one or more actual instances of violence at work.  OSHA appears to be unable to gather sufficient facts during an inspection to support a citation in advance of an actual instance of workplace violence — even though OSHA’s citations allege the employer should have addressed the hazard in advance.

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

By Brent I. ClarkJoshua M. Henderson, and Craig B. Simonsen

Seyfarth Synopsis: The California Division of Occupational Safety & Health Standards Board approved last week its regulations on Workplace Violence Prevention in Health Care.

The California Division of Occupational Safety & Health (Cal/OSHA) Standards Board approved last week its regulations on Workplace Violence Prevention in Health Care, CCR Title 8, Section 3342. The Notice of Addition of Documents to California Code of Regulations was signed September 27, 2016, and the rule was passed by the Board on October 21, 2016. The draft has now been submitted to the Office of Administrative Law for review and approval (or not). If approved the rules will become final and will be submitted to the Secretary of State for promulgation.

We had blogged in 2015 about the Cal/OSHA draft proposed regulation that would require health-care employers, home health and hospice providers, and emergency responders to develop workplace violence-prevention plans, train their employees, and keep records related to workplace violence incidents. If adopted, the regulations also require certain hospitals to report violent incidents that resulted in an injury, involved the use of a firearm or other dangerous weapon, or present an urgent or emergent threat to the welfare, health or safety within 24 hours and all incidents within 72 hours.

Based on the definition of “reportable workplace violence incident” employers are required to report incidents that did not result in an injury if there was a high likelihood that injury, psychological trauma, or stress would result, or the incident involved the use of a firearm or other dangerous weapon. The regulations further require employers to take immediate corrective action where a hazard was imminent and take measures to protect employees from identified serious workplace violence hazards within seven days of the discovery of the hazard. Additionally, employers are required to maintain a “Violent Incident Log.”

The rule follows the enactment of SB 1299, requiring Cal/OSHA to have a workplace violence prevention regulation for healthcare workers promulgated by July 1, 2016. Yet, California was not alone. The regulation comes as emphasis on workplace violence increases in both federal and state plan OSHA jurisdictions. For instance, in April 2015 we blogged that “OSHA Updates Workplace Violence Guidance for Protecting Healthcare and Social Service Workers”, in July 2015 we blogged that “Healthcare Employers to Get Even More Attention from OSHA”, in December 2015 “OSHA Issues “Strategies and Tools” to “Help Prevent” Workplace Violence in the Healthcare Setting”, and in August 2016 we blogged about how “NIOSH Offers Free Training Program to Help Employers Address Safety Risks Faced by Home Healthcare Workers”.

As part of the employer’s Injury and Illness Prevention Program (IIPP), under section 3342(c), the final rules require a “Workplace Violence Prevention Plan” (Plan) that is “in effect at all times in every unit, service, and operation. The Plan shall be in writing, shall be specific to the hazards and corrective measures for the unit, service, or operation, and shall be available to employees at all times. The written Plan may be incorporated into the written IIPP or maintained as a separate document”. In addition, the final rules do incorporate the “Violent Incident Log” provisions. The rules require that the “employer shall record information in a violent incident log about every incident, post-incident response, and workplace violence injury investigation”.

Covered employers in California should take care to evaluate their workplaces for potential workplace violence hazards and institute–and enforce–policies concerning training and reporting.  Certainly employers in California, or with a business presence in California, there is a heightened need to evaluate compliance with these new rules. In addition to modified policies, procedures, and training systems, these new rules may require substantial changes including physical facility changes and staffing increases.

Note that with or without these new rules, in California or out, an administrative enforcement action in the event of a workplace violence incident or related civil liability is a possibility. The new rules also incorporate substantial training, reporting, and recordkeeping provisions. Federal OSHA enforces workplace violence under the General Duty Clause. We would not be surprised to see the Federal OSHA referring to the California Rule in its citations in the future.

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 or the Workplace Policies and Handbooks Team.

 

 

By Brent I. Clark and Craig B. Simonsen

White Square Button with Arm AmputeeLast week OSHA issued its updated National Emphasis Program on Amputations (NEP). Instruction CPL 03-00-019 (June 30, 2015). Take that juxtaposed against OSHA’s citation in a recent case where on his first day on the job a 21-year-old employee suffered severe burns and the loss of four fingers.

National Emphasis Program on Amputations

The NEP, which was first issued in 2006, was targeted toward industries with high numbers and rates of amputations. In the updated NEP, OSHA has used updated enforcement data and Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) injury data to better direct its inspection site selection targeting. According to OSHA, manufacturing employers report that 2,000 workers suffered amputations in 2013. The BLS rate of amputations in the manufacturing sector was “more than twice as much (1.7 per 10,000 full-time employees) as that of all private industry (0.7).”

In the NEP announcement the OSHA Administrator Dr. David Michaels said “this directive will help ensure that employers identify and eliminate serious workplace hazards and provide safe workplaces for all workers.” The NEP applies to general industry workplaces in which any machinery or equipment likely to cause amputations are present. Inspections “will include an evaluation of employee exposures during operations such as: clearing jams; cleaning, oiling or greasing machines or machine pans; and locking out machinery to prevent accidental start-up.”

The NEP lists out the more than ninety 2012 NAICS code industries that will fall under the enhanced inspection regime. The industries fall within a large scope, including those such as dairy, meat processing, bakeries, food manufacturing, wood industries, paperboard, printing, plastics, concrete, metals, arms and munitions, farm implements and equipment, power generation and transmission equipment, laboratory equipment, vehicle manufacturing, and household equipment and furniture.

Recent Case Example

Just last week OSHA issued a citation against a plastics manufacturer where on his first day on the job a 21-year-old employee suffered severe burns and the loss of four fingers. According to OSHA, its “inspectors found the company failed to train the employee about safety requirements that protect workers from machine hazards. [The company] also failed to report the injury to the agency, as required.” In response to the incident, the company was given a proposed penalty of $171,270, and it was placed in the Severe Violator Enforcement Program (SVEP).

While we only have OSHA’s version of the facts, the scenario is illustrative of how OSHA views training for new employees. For instance, the citation claims that the employer failed to train the employee about safety requirements that protect workers from machine hazards. The employee was out on the shop floor, on his first day, attempting to dislodge a jam in a machine. OSHA expects employers to carefully train new employees and take extra caution to ensure they are safe. Employers should consider whether their new employee training and orientation is appropriate given the hazards and complexity of the job.

In addition to the penalty, being placed on OSHA’s SVEP will put the employer in a position where it will be subject to increased inspections over many years. Making the case to have the company removed from the SVEP will be a time consuming and expensive process, and may not be successful under OSHA’s one-sided procedures.

In another teaching moment, once the amputation had occurred, especially now since the adoption and implementation of OSHA’s revised reporting rules, the company allegedly “failed to report the injury to the agency.” Employers need to have reviewed the new OSHA reporting rules and determined the applicability as to their business. Don’t wait for an incident to think about whether or not you need to report. Figure it out now while you are not under a potentially expensive time clock.