Tag Archives: OSHA

Good news, bad news when it comes to heat exposure and workplace law

Posted on June 12, 2022 by Jon Rehm

Nebraska law can be friendly towards weather-related injury and weather-safety whistleblower claims, but workers should expect extra scrutiny from courts on these types of claims.

Nebraskans started experiencing their first heat wave of the summer this weekend. Most of the state will see temperatures at or near 100 degrees Fahrenheit early next week. Nebraska workers face a mixed bag of news when it comes to state and federal workplace safety laws when it comes to heat.

Good news: Positional risk doctrine and weather-related work injuries in Nebraska.

In Nebraska, a worker who is injured as a result of extreme weather should be able to collect workers’ compensation because the state has adopted the positional-risk test – at least when it comes to tornados. Positional risk means that if you are injured at work because of a general or neutral risk like weather at work, then you can collect workers’ compensation for your injury. Not all states have adopted this rule which makes it harder for those workers to collect workers compensation for heat-related injuries.

Bad news: Heightened causation for heat-related heart attacks in Nebraska

One common heat-related injury is a heart attack. But heart attacks have a more difficult causation standard that typical work injuries in Nebraska. Nebraska typically has what is called contributing factor causation which means that a work injury or working conditions can combine with other personal factors and still be covered by workers’ compensation. But with a heart attack, an employee has to show that work substantially increased the risk of the heart attack. It’s not an impossible standard, to meet but at the very least it can give an insurer/employer the ability to initially deny a heat-related heart attack claim.

Good news: USDOL is pushing a heat standard

In contrast to the Obama administration, the Biden DOL is moving forward with a rule for heat exposure on the job. This is important because OSHA is more likely to sanction employers if they are violating a specific rule rather than the so-called General duty clause.

Bad news: It could take up to 10 years to enact a specific OSHA heat rule

Reporter Mike Elk of Payday Report and former OSHA official turned blogger Jordan Barab have done great writing and reporting about the delays in enacting workplace safety rules through OSHA. In regards to the heat rule, if everything goes right then a heat rule may get enacted sometime in 2027 or 2028. This is likely assuming a second Biden term or that Biden is succeeded by a Democrat in 2025. This isn’t a political blog per se, but those are big assumptions at this point.

Good news/Bad News: Private enforcement via whistleblower laws

However employees who believe that their employer is creating unsafe conditions related to heat can still call OSHA. From my experience, OSHA is more likely to take action if employees are willing to forgo anonymity in their complaint. Forgoing anonymity when making a complaint can also make it easier for an employee to succeed in a retaliation case.

While a general complaint about unsafe working conditions doesn’t always give you a right to sue your employer, employees in certain industries can ask for administrative hearings in retaliation cases. Further, Nebraska has a general whistleblower law that allows employees to sue employers in state court over retaliation.

Again, these cases are stronger if an employee is willing to call OSHA and forgo anonymity. State and federal judges have enacted many hurdles in retaliation cases that make it harder for employees to win these claims. I think part of the reason why judges have thrown up hurdles in retaliation cases is because most employees are reluctant to report misconduct to a government agency and want anonymity when they do. Bluntly, it seems like courts are adopting the “I’m the m-fer who called OSHA!” test for what constitutes a protected activity in a retaliation case.

Does implementation of OSHA COVID vaccine rule subtlety undermine workplace safety and signal broader move to weaken workplace rights in light of pandemic?

Posted on November 1, 2021 by Jon Rehm

Bloomberg News reported that employees who refuse vaccinations under the proposed OSHA COVID vaccination rule could be forced to pay for COVID testing and masks.

While many liberals may cheer this result, former Obama administration OSHA official Jordan Barab blogged that forcing employees to pay for protective gear satisfies a long-standing demand from business.

Barab also pointed out that exempting companies that employ under 100 workers from the vaccine rule is unprecedented for OSHA. OSHA safety rules typically apply to all employers regardless of size.

While OSHA fines could increase as part of the reconciliation bill, OSHA’s proposals to shift protective gear costs onto employees and exempt small employers from is a disturbing trend. Barab described them as a “camels nose under the tent” for business interests.

I agree with Barab, but I have some other reasons why I don’t like how the proposed vaccine rule could be implemented by OSHA.

Effects on workers compensation?

Like OSHA standards, workers compensation laws apply broadly to employers regardless of size. But if smaller employers are exempted from OSHA requirements, these employers may ask why they are required to carry workers compensation insurance. OSHA regulations and workers compensation laws both regulate workplace safety. If OSHA concedes their regulations are too burdensome for small employers, it could be hard to convince state legislators that workers compensation laws aren’t overly burdensome for smaller employers.

Legal backlash against COVID denialism

Back in August 2020, I wrote about how I thought backlash against COVID deniers could build support to weaken laws that protect employees. The proposed implementation of the OSHA vaccination rule is one example of this phenomenon.

The Supreme Court will hear a challenge to the Rehabilitation Act filed by CVS Pharmacy that could end up substantially undermining the Americans with Disabilities Act. Business wanted to weaken the ADA before the pandemic. Some challenges to vaccine mandates are likely to come under the ADA. Decisions in those cases may accelerate the undermining of the ADA desired by business interests before the pandemic.

State challenge to OSHA COVID rules could narrow path for whistleblower plaintiffs

Posted on October 25, 2021 by Jon Rehm

Nebraska Attorney General Doug Peterson announced last week that he would likely challenge proposed a OSHA rule requiring employers with more than 100 employees to require COVID vaccinations or testing.

I suspect this challenge may weaken protections for whistleblower employees who report their employers to OSHA for not following OSHA rules on COVID vaccination and testing. Here is the why and how I think state challenges to federal rules on vaccination and testing could undercut whistleblower protections in Nebraska.

OSHA is going to rely on whistleblowers to enforce the vaccine and testing rule due to understaffing. Typically an employee who makes a report to OSHA can’t file their own lawsuit against their employer if they are retaliated against for making the report.

But in Nebraska, employers have a right to sue their employers for conduct that violates state or federal law under Neb. Rev. Stat. 48-1114.

In a typical retaliation case an employee has to show that 1) they engaged in a protected activity 2) their employer took some adverse action against them and 3) there is a causal link between the protected activity and the adverse action

At least under current Nebraska law, employees just need to have an honest or good faith belief that their employers conduct violates the law to have their report of unlawful activity to be a protected activity.

The potential problem for Nebraska employees seeking protections for reporting their employers to OSHA for not following the vaccine rule, is that a state law challenge to the rule blurs the lines whether the conduct they are opposing is plausibly unlawful.

Employees don’t have protections for reporting what courts deems as bad acts that aren’t illegal. Furthermore, courts in Nebraska hold that they aren’t going to second guess personnel decisions barring some evidence of discriminatory intent under the employment at-will doctrine. So, not surprisingly, employers typically fight the issue of whether their employee was engaging in a protected activity at all. Courts will sometimes agree with employers on this argument

I believe an employee can still meet a good faith standard by arguing they were opposing conduct that is unlawful under federal law. But a state law challenge to a federal rule on COVID vaccination and testing could narrow an already narrow path to a successful retaliation case for a whistleblower in Nebraska.

A new federal thumb on the scale for COVID occupational disease claims?

Posted on July 11, 2021 by Jon Rehm

Last month the U.S. Department of Labor announced an emergency standard for COVID-19 safety for health care workers due to the risk of COVID-19 exposure. The regulation may make it easier for workers in states like Nebraska to bring workers’ compensation cases for COVID-19 exposure on the job.

Nebraska allows workers to recover for occupational diseases in addition to injuries or conditions caught directly arising out of and in the course of their work duties. An occupational disease is one that is particular to an occupation or line of work. The Department of Labor’s findings about COVID-19 exposure in health care, could be a thumb on the scale for workers, or their surviving dependents, trying to bring a workers’ compensation claim.

While the new rule is helpful, it may not be game changing. Workers compensation laws are state laws. A federal regulation wouldn’t bind a state court or agency deciding a workers’ compensation case. Additionally, many states have passed COVID-19 presumptions under their state’s workers compensation laws for health care workers. This means that if certain classes of workers catch COVID-19, it is presumed to be work-related. This forces employers to show some non-work-related exposure to avoid liability,

Nebraska has not passed any sort of COVID-19 presumption for any workers.

Some employee and public health advocates have criticized the new standard as not covering more workers. I sympathize with that view. I will not blindly cheer for a Democratic administration. The Obama administration left a lot to be desired when it came to workplace safety issues – a lot. But the new COVID-19 standard for health care workers is an improvement on no standard.

Earlier in the pandemic, when Eugene Scalia was Labor Secretary during the Trump administration, the Department of Labor implemented rules that it made it harder for employees to track workplace COVID exposure. I can’t argue that a thumb on the scale for workers/labor is better than a thumb on the scale for management/capital. But the federal government needs to be more aggressive in enforcing workplace safety rules.

How the federal government, the State of Nebraska and the City of Lincoln fail convenience store clerks

Posted on June 28, 2021 by Jon Rehm

A clerk at the Kwik Shop at 14^th and Adams Street in Lincoln was severely beaten during a robbery last weekend when a robber reached for cash in a cash register, pushed through a barrier and jumped over the counter to beat the clerk.

News reports about that store reveal a clerk was murdered in 2016, a clerk was assaulted in 2020 and the store was robbed in 2008. The Kwik Shop at 14^th and Adams is the proverbial poster child for the failure of the federal government, the State of Nebraska and the City of Lincoln to effectively protect convenience store workers.

How the federal government fails in convenience store clerks

In the wake of the July 2016 murder of a clerk at the 14^th and Adams Kwik Shop, I wrote about OSHA’s failure to implement safety standards for convenience stores. The Indiana Department of Labor did a study about convenience stores and showed barriers that prevented robbers from reaching into cash registers and jumping behind counters deterred robbers.

Despite the history of violence at the store, the Kwik Shop at 14^th and Adams Street still lacks those protections.

An OSHA rule would let OSHA cite convenience stores specifically for failing to protect workers from violence.

How the state of Nebraska fails convenience store clerks

The state of Nebraska has failed to implement and statutory law or regulations that protect convenience store clerks. In theory workers compensation laws regulate working conditions by making employers pay for injuries to their employees. But retail workers are not compensated for solely mental injuries (known in workers compensation lingo as “mental-mental”). So for example, if a convenience store clerk has a gun pointed in their face, but not physically assaulted, that mental trauma is not covered by workers’ compensation.

But if convenience store owners did have to pay for mental trauma injuries to their employees, they would find ways to minimize the chance of those mental trauma injuries. Measures like bulletproof glass would make it harder for robbers to jump over counters and to threaten workers with guns.

The State of Nebraska has workers compensation for solely mental injuries for first responders. Recent legislation has expanded the number of employees who are deemed first responders and has made it easier for some first responders to prove their cases for solely mental injuries. No legislation has been introduced that would allow retail workers or convenience store clerks from receiving mental-mental benefits.

How the City of Lincoln fails convenience store clerks

Some cities have implemented safety standards for convenience store clerks. That list does not include Lincoln, Nebraska. I think public safety officials in Lincoln have also displayed a somewhat cavalier attitude about convenience store violence. After the murder of the clerk at the 14^th and Adams, Kwik Shop, then Public Safety Director Tom Casady talked about how rare convenience store murders and shootings were. This despite the fact that same store was robbed in 2008. Lincoln’s then police chief, Tom Bliemeister stated that he was unsure about why Lincoln has above-average murders in 2016. Why that question may have some merit, research was clear about the risks to employees working late night retail. That store had previously been subject to a robbery. I think public safety officials in Lincoln don’t think about how public safety is often workplace safety.

Will the Biden administration create a federal heat standard?

Posted on June 17, 2021 by Jon Rehm

Nebraska and much of the western United States have been struck with sweltering temperatures this week. The hot weather serves to remind me that there is still no federal standard for workplace heat exposure.

NBC ran a story earlier this week that updated and explained efforts to create a national standard for heat exposure in the workplace. The Department of Labor, through the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, can implement such a rule. Some states, like California, have implemented rules about heat exposure in the workplace. The California rule seems like it codifies common sense about water breaks and shade.

Hopefully our new Labor Secretary, Marty Walsh a former union leader, implements a heat exposure rule. The Obama administration DOL rejected a heat exposure rule in the blazing hot summer of 2012.

Heat exposure and workers compensation

Nebraska does not have a heat exposure rule like California. However Nebraska workers compensation law covers heat-related injuries. At the very least, workers’ compensation provides some baseline level of regulation for employers when it comes to heat. But compensation in workers’ compensation cases is limited and no amount of money can replace the life of a family member. Additionally, some heat-related injuries like heart attacks have tougher causation standard which make it more difficult for workers or their dependent family members from recovering benefits.

The advantage of an OSHA rule for heat exposure is that means that OSHA can sanction and shame employers who violate the rule.

Workplace heat exposure and climate change

Climate change is expected to raise summer temperatures in Lincoln, Nebraska by 5.5 degrees Fahrenheit by 2050 and by 11 degrees by 2100. Heat will be an even larger occupational risk than it is today. Chicago experienced a heat wave in 1995 that killed 749 people. This little remembered natural disaster could be a precursor for more heat-related health problems and deaths in the future. One argument against a national heat standard is that it doesn’t account for “regional variations” in climate. But if climate scientists are correct, most if not all, areas of the United States will be at real risk for heat-related injuries and illnesses in the future. OSHA and Congress should take action to protect workers.

Whether marijuana is legal or not, post-injury drug tests are here to stay

Posted on May 3, 2021 by Jon Rehm

Thomas Robinson wrote a good post where he predicted the legalization of recreational marijuana could lead to less post-injury drug testing.

I live in Nebraska. For the present, legalized recreational marijuana is as a realistic prospect as Pete Ricketts with hair. But even if Nebraska legalized marijuana, I doubt it would decrease post-injury drug testing in this state. Here is why I believe so:

Drug testing, occupational medicine and doctor choice

In short, getting drug tested at an occupational medicine clinic is a way to prod employees to let employers control their medical care. After an injury, many major employers in Omaha or Lincoln send their injured workers to occupational medicine clinics for a drug test. Of course, once the employee is at a clinic for a drug test, it seems convenient to get treatment at that clinic.

I’ve stated before that employers like to use drug testing to reinforce their power in the employee-employer relationship. Drug testing is just one of the many ways that employers and insurers use their power to minimize what they need to pay out in workers’ compensation claims.

Drug testing and drugs besides marijuana

So even if marijuana is legal and it’s difficult to use testing to prove impairment, employers can still test for alcohol and other drugs whether legal or illegal. Sometimes doctors will order drug testing to ensure sobriety from certain substances before a surgery or other procedure. As invasive as such an order may be, if it’s in the context of a workers’ compensation claim, a judge will likely be inclined to let that testing proceed.

What about the OSHA drug testing rule?

OSHA implemented a rule 2016 and clarified in 2018 that could limit post-injury drug testing. But the OSHA rule has exceptions if the drug testing is used as a way to get a discount for workers’ compensation insurance or as investigation into an accident. I think the rule is fairly weak. But even if an employer is sanctioned by OSHA, fines are relatively small for major employers and employees lack a way to sue employers directly for a violation of OSHA rules.

In theory, an employee fired for failing a post-injury drug test could have a retaliation case. After all, but for the employee claiming workers’ compensation they wouldn’t have been drug tested which lead to them being fired. In practice, some courts are finding that merely being injured isn’t enough to invoke the protections of anti-retaliation laws. Some courts could also find that failing a drug test to be a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason to be fired.

Changing the power dynamics between employee and employer

The bottom line is that legalized marijuana will do little if anything to change the imbalance of power between employee and employer. Without laws that provide more protections to employees, employers will continue to test employees for drugs and employees will continue to face consequences for violating drug and alcohol policies – even those that have nothing to do with their employment.

A double-standard on workplace violence?

Posted on March 22, 2021 by Jon Rehm

Employment laws in the United States are skewed extremely for the benefit of employers. Workplace violence is a prime example. Consider two examples about violence in the workplace

Take the convenience store clerk working overnight in a store that has been robbed before. There are risking their job by refusing to work at an unsafe job. In most places, there is no requirement for protective barriers. In most states, they can’t collect workers’ compensation for mental trauma without a physical injury. In most states, their sole remedy for injuries from workplace violence is workers compensation, which may provide very limited compensation.

An employee who may be under stress and/or suffering from mental illness may make an off-hand remark or unserious remark about violence. That person can be fired for largely without repercussions in the name of safety.

So in many respects, the threat of violence, even if vague or taken out of context. in the workplace is taken more seriously than actual violence. It’s easy to square this seeming contradiction when you realize employment laws in this country are written to benefit employers. The concept of employment at-will, created by a legal academics in the mid-to-late 19th century, and implemented by judges is the root cause of the imbalance of labor-management relations in this country.

So what can be done to protect employees from actual workplace violence, aside from outright abolishing employment at-will?

OSHA standard on convenience stores

I think OSHA should implement nationwide safety standards for convenience stores. OSHA has been pondering this idea since the 1990s. I know from my informal discussions with local OSHA staff, that this idea is popular with OSHA staff. A rule would improve safety in convenience stores.

I also think a formal rule from OSHA would make any retaliation case stronger under Neb. Rev. Stat. 48-1114. I believe that the OSHA general duty clause would give convenience store workers a way to bring a retaliation claim for reporting unsafe working conditions. But management often argues that vague references to OSHA regulations don’t comprise a protected activity. An OSHA rule would give convenience store and other retail workers a clear legal leg to stand on when reporting workplace violence.

Pass the PRO Act

The vast majority of the time, a union contract provides more on-the-job protections than any government regulation or anti-discrimination law. The House recently passed the Protecting the Right to Organize or PRO Act, that it would make it easier to organize unions. This would be a boon for workplace safety for all workers.

The same troll army of freelance writers, literal neo-liberal shills, who whined about AB5 in California are now attacking the PRO Act. I support the PRO Act. My only concern about the PRO Act is that it gets used by Uber, Lyft, Door Dash, et al. to implement half-a— “portable benefits” schemes under the guise so-called “sectoral bargaining.”

Workers' Compensation Watch

Published by Rehm, Bennett, Moore & Rehm

Published by:

Tag Archives: OSHA

Good news, bad news when it comes to heat exposure and workplace law

Does implementation of OSHA COVID vaccine rule subtlety undermine workplace safety and signal broader move to weaken workplace rights in light of pandemic?

State challenge to OSHA COVID rules could narrow path for whistleblower plaintiffs

A new federal thumb on the scale for COVID occupational disease claims?

How the federal government, the State of Nebraska and the City of Lincoln fail convenience store clerks

Will the Biden administration create a federal heat standard?

Whether marijuana is legal or not, post-injury drug tests are here to stay

A double-standard on workplace violence?

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: