Search form

State OSHA Programs Can Be Significant Source of Big Fines

By Carla J. Gunnin
  • November 6, 2015

While big penalties levied by the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration dominate the headlines, monetary fines imposed by health and safety agencies in states backed by OSHA can be significant, too.

So-called State Plan states are those with OSHA-approved job safety and health programs. The federal agency provides up to 50 percent of the funding for these programs, which must be at least as effective as their federal counterpart. States without such a program are prevented from enforcing OSHA standards. Twenty-one states and Puerto Rico have OSHA-approved State Plans that cover both private and public sector workers. Six additional states and the Virgin Islands have OSHA-approved State Plans that cover only state, territorial, and local government public sector workers. Authorization for the state plans comes from Section 18 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act.

Since June, six State Plan states have levied six-figure penalties totaling about $2.9 million against 10 companies for alleged safety and health violations. California’s safety agency, Cal/OSHA, charged a meat byproducts processing company, a door manufacturer, a refinery, and two construction firms with violations amounting to $1.6 million. Michigan’s OSHA program fined a foundry $638,450; a bulk shipping firm in Washington State received a $218,450 fine; a water utility in New Mexico, $144,000; a company that regulates and administers transportation programs in North Carolina, $140,000; and an Indiana shipyard, $112,500.

These penalties highlight that many states carry as big an enforcement stick as federal OSHA. Employers should be as vigilant in monitoring state occupational safety and health enforcement practices as they are with the federal agency’s activities.

©2015 Jackson Lewis P.C. This Update is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended as legal advice nor does it create an attorney/client relationship between Jackson Lewis and any readers or recipients. Readers should consult counsel of their own choosing to discuss how these matters relate to their individual circumstances. Reproduction in whole or in part is prohibited without the express written consent of Jackson Lewis.

This Update may be considered attorney advertising in some states. Furthermore, prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Jackson Lewis P.C. represents management exclusively in workplace law and related litigation. Our attorneys are available to assist employers in their compliance efforts and to represent employers in matters before state and federal courts and administrative agencies. For more information, please contact the attorney(s) listed or the Jackson Lewis attorney with whom you regularly work.

See AllRelated Articles You May Like

February 21, 2018

Maine Recreational Marijuana Law Limits Drug Testing, Disciplinary Consequences Imposed by Employers

February 21, 2018

A provision of Maine’s recreational marijuana law prohibits employers from taking adverse employment actions for off-premises marijuana use, as of February 1, 2018. This law effectively prevents Maine employers from testing for marijuana for pre-employment purposes. The law also affects employers who employ employees subject to federal... Read More

January 29, 2018

Fitness Industry Workplace Law Update – Winter 2018

January 29, 2018

Welcome to our premiere issue! Our goal is to keep fitness industry clients and contacts informed about employment and labor law issues that may affect your organizations. We hope you find this newsletter valuable and invite you to share it with interested colleagues and contacts. In this issue, we provide a brief summary of hot... Read More

January 24, 2018

2018: The Year Ahead for Employers

January 24, 2018

An executive summary of recent changes in workplace law and a look ahead to 2018. Read More

Related Practices