Labor of Law: New OSHA Ruling on Workplace Violence | Texas Judge Rips 5th Circuit Panel | New Janus Litigation | Who Got the Work
We're spotlighting the new OSHA ruling on workplace violence—takeaways and more. Plus: a federal trial judge slams a 5th Circuit panel that criticized his remarks about arbitration. Scroll down for Who Got the Work. Thanks for reading!
March 14, 2019 at 12:00 PM
7 minute read
Good afternoon, and welcome to Labor of Law. A new ruling from the OSHA review commission—and a win for the Labor Department—confronts workplace violence liability for employers. The First Circuit's out with a new age-bias opinionagainst a real estate company, and a Texas federal judge slams a Fifth Circuit panel over “inaccurate” statements. Scroll down for more Who Got the Work, notable moves and more.
Tips, feedback or just say hi: Contact Erin Mulvaney at [email protected] and on Twitter @erinmulvaney & Mike Scarcella at [email protected] and on Twitter @MikeScarcella. Thanks for reading!
OSHA Ruling Tests Workplace Violence Liability
In 2012, a health care worker was stabbed to death on a front lawn during a home visit to a client with a history of mental illness and violence. Should employer Integra Health management, which provides social services, be accountable for her death?
The Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission recently ruled for labor regulators, upholding citations against the company. The case, closely watched by the business community and worker safety groups, involved several years of administrative wrangling. The ruling is getting some attention as a test of the contours of liability for workplace violence.
>> What the OSHA review commission said: The review commission, ruling for the Labor Department, concluded that Integra Health violated the “general duty” clause of the OSHA Act. That provision says employers must “furnish to each of his employees employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees.”
The company, according to the commission, failed to adequately address the risk of its employees from being physically assaulted. “The record establishes that Integra could have taken precautions preventing injury by hiring, training, performing, and assigning work appropriately, but chose not to in the interest of saving money and time,” the commission concluded.
The decision against Integra included a $10,500 penalty and requirement to provide a workplace violence prevention program. An administrative law judge twice upheld the OSHA citations in 2015. Kevin McCormick of Whiteford Taylor Preston in Baltimore represented the company.
>> The case attracted substantial amicus attention. Unions, worker safety and business groups weighed in on the appeal.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce was represented by Washington-based Jones Daypartner Jackie Holmes, who advises companies on OSHA and labor risks. The Chamber's amicus brief argued the “general duty” clause does not apply to the normal activities of business.
“Human interaction, of course, is an essential component of numerous businesses. And human interaction carries a small but irreducible risk of human misbehavior. Here, the population Integra serves presents potentially elevated risks.”
The National Council for Occupational Safety and Health said health care workers are frequent victims of workplace violence and strong protections are needed. The group's amicus brief, by Randy Rabinowitz, executive director, argued Integra had the ability to reduce the risk of violence through training and other measures.
>> Watching now: “How far will it be extended? “The commission, which issues about 10 decisions a year, does not often rule on how liable a company must be for workplace violence. It's been several years since such a ruling but the debate over workplace safety is not new, said Seyfarth Shaw partner Brent Clark.
“The Integra decision is significant and controversial at the same time,” Clark said. “The court is essentially saying the employer should have anticipated that it was reasonably foreseeable that this particular individual would commit this violence. How does it know? Lightning never struck before, But today, I am supposed to anticipate that someone was going to get hit by lightning?” One big question that Clark raised: “Now the question is, how far will it be extended?”
Fisher & Phillips partner Ed Foulke, who previously served as the head of OSHA from 2006 to 2008, said the “general duty” clause is in play because there's no standard for workplace violence. The commission's ruling in the Integra Health case, while fact-specific, provides some guidance for employers. “You, as an employer, shouldn't close your eyes to stuff. You need to look at the reasonable foreseeability. Employers can't be held to hazards over which they can't control. This really gives the test.”
More reading at Corporate Counsel: Should You Be Taking the Lead on Workplace Violence Training?
Who Got the Work
>> Seyfarth Shaw's Robert Whitman and Littler Mendelson's Gary Liebermanrepresented PNC Investments LLC in a whistleblower case at the U.S. Labor Department. An agency appeals panel has upheld the dismissal of a complaint that was filed more than three years after the termination. Under the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010, “a retaliation complaint must be filed within 180 days of the alleged adverse action,” the panel wrote.
>> Lawyers from Mayer Brown—including Evan Tager and Archis Parasharami, co-chair of the firm's consumer litigation and class actions practice—successfully defended Lyft Inc. in an arbitration dispute in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. Shannon Liss-Riordan of Lichten & Liss-Riordan represented the driver. The appeals court, with retired Justice David Souter sitting, upheld a trial court judgment that the parties had a valid and enforcement agreement to arbitrate. Read the ruling.
>> Firms hired by the California Assembly in 2018 to conduct harassment investigations included: Littler Mendelson, Stoel Rives LLP and Van Dermyden Maddux Investigations. The California Senate hired the Law Offices of Amy Oppenheimer, Van Dermyden Maddux and Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher to handle investigations, the Associated Press reported.
>> Holland & Knight represented the real estate company Cushman & Wakefield in the First Circuit, which upheld a $1.3 million age-bias jury verdict. A unanimous three-judge panel concluded there was a legally sufficient basis for the verdict. Mark Szal of Szal Law Group and John Dennehy of Dennehy Law represented the plaintiff. Read the opinion.
>> Winston & Strawn partners Cardelle Spangler, Diana Hughes and Jeffrey Kessler, co-executive chairman of the firm, are on the team representing U.S. women's soccer players in a class action lawsuit that accuses the U.S. Soccer Federation of bias and unequal treatment to the women compared to male players. Bloomberg Law has more here.
>> The law firm Consovoy McCarthy Park is representing Texas plaintiffs who are challenging the state's mandatory bar fees. The complaint says the attorneys do not support the bar's “diversity initiatives” or programs aimed at helping immigrants who have crossed the border illegally. Read more here.
Around the Water Cooler
>> A Houston federal judge pushed back against the Fifth Circuit's implication that he was biased against mandatory arbitration. U.S. District Judge Keith Ellison(above) chided the 5th Circuit panel, led by Judge Jerry Smith, for “misleading and inaccurate” statements. [Law.com]
>> Business groups dominate Labor Secretary Alexander Acosta's schedule. Public records show Acosta rarely meets with unions. [Politico]
>> Ride-hailing company Uber Technologies Inc. has agreed to pay $20 million to a class of drivers in a proposed settlement agreement Monday that could end more than five years of litigation over how the company classifies its drivers. [Law.com] The New York times has more here.
>>Teachers in California are the latest to file an action testing the bounds of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Janus v. AFSCME that eliminated certain public-sector union fees. [The Recorder]
>> The U.S. Labor Department's long-anticipated overtime proposal came down late last week. Here's a snapshot of what management-side lawyers are saying. [The National Law Journal]
>> The EEOC is suing Party City, alleging the company fired a pregnant employee because of health complications stemming from her battle with cervical cancer. [Houston Chronicle]
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLabor of Law: As Workers Suffer With Long Covid, Employers May Rethink Accommodations for Other Disabilities
Labor of Law: Federal Noncompete Ban Would Be Far From Last Word on Issue
Labor of Law: New Federal Rule Could Upend State Efforts to Count Ride-Share Drivers as Contractors
Labor of Law: Employer Statements on Abortion Could Spur Discrimination, Hostile Work Environment Claims
Trending Stories
- 1‘Catholic Charities v. Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission’: Another Consequence of 'Hobby Lobby'?
- 2With DEI Rollbacks, Employment Lawyers See Potential For Targeting Corporate Commitment to Equality
- 3In-House Legal Network The L Suite Acquires Legal E-Learning Platform Luminate+
- 4In Police Shooting Case, Kavanaugh Bleeds Blue and Jackson ‘Very Very Confused’
- 5Trump RTO Mandates Won’t Disrupt Big Law Policies—But Client Expectations Might
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250