Delinquent State Safety Regulators, Particularly Cal/OSHA, Catch Up with OSHA’s E-Recordkeeping Rule

connDeaconGuest Commentary

By Eric J. Conn and Dan C. Deacon; Mr. Conn is a founding partner of Conn Maciel Carey LLP in Washington, DC and Chair of the OSHA • Workplace Safety Group, and Mr. Deacon is an associate with the firm. The two recently wrote a WLF Legal Backgrounder on OSHA’s efforts to alter the E-Recordkeeping Rule and the further steps OSHA must take.

Ed. Note: This commentary originally appeared in Conn Maciel Carey LLP’s OSHA Defense Report and is reprinted with permission.

When the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) promulgated the Final Rule to “Improve Tracking of Workplace Injuries and Illnesses” (aka the E-Recordkeeping Rule) in 2016, it built into the Rule a mandate that all State Plans (i.e. state occupational safety and health agencies) adopt substantially identical requirements to the final E-Recordkeeping Rule within six months after its publication.  However, because State Plans all have their own legislative or rulemaking processes, they cannot simply snap their fingers and instantly adopt a new Rule even if required to do so by OSHA.  Also importantly, the State Plans, as well as all employers in the regulated community, were getting mixed signals about the future of the E-Recordkeeping Rule from OSHA under the new Trump Administration. Continue reading “Delinquent State Safety Regulators, Particularly Cal/OSHA, Catch Up with OSHA’s E-Recordkeeping Rule”

The Supreme Court’s “Epic Systems” Decision: Holdings and Hints on “Chevron” Deference

SapperGuest Commentary

By Arthur G. Sapper, Senior Counsel with Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. in its Washington, DC office, where he practices both appellate litigation and administrative law, with an emphasis on OSHA matters.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Epic Systems Corporation v. Lewis will likely prove important on issues other than the arbitration of labor disputes. An extended passage in the opinion (from page 19 through 21 of the slip opinion) is likely to alter the deference rule of Chevron and perhaps that of Auer as well. (Chevron deference pertains to statutes; Auer deference pertains to regulations.) Continue reading “The Supreme Court’s “Epic Systems” Decision: Holdings and Hints on “Chevron” Deference”