Judicial review of OSHA standards
State OSHA Plans vs. Federal OSHA: Overview
The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act) created the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) under the U.S. Department of Labor, establishing federal workplace safety and health standards.
The Act also allows states to develop and operate their own OSHA-approved state plans for workplace safety and health, as long as the state standards are at least as effective as federal OSHA standards. States with approved plans have primary enforcement responsibility over most private sector workplaces.
Federal OSHA retains oversight authority and can monitor state plans to ensure compliance. The federal government can withdraw approval of a state plan if it does not meet federal standards or adequately enforce occupational safety laws.
Key Features of State Plans vs. Federal OSHA
State plans cover private sector workplaces (and sometimes public sector employees).
States must adopt standards equal to or more stringent than federal OSHA.
Federal OSHA monitors and reviews state plans regularly.
Federal OSHA may reassume enforcement in a state if the plan is inadequate.
Employees and employers can bring challenges based on enforcement actions under either system.
Important Cases on State OSHA Plans and Federal Oversight
1. Industrial Union Department, AFL-CIO v. American Petroleum Institute (Benzene Case) (1980)
Facts: OSHA promulgated benzene exposure standards, which were challenged by industry groups for not adequately considering economic impact.
Issue: Did OSHA properly consider the feasibility of standards?
Holding: The Supreme Court required OSHA to balance health risks and feasibility more carefully.
Significance: While a federal OSHA case, the ruling affected how both federal and state OSHA plans must consider scientific and economic data when setting or enforcing standards.
2. Gade v. National Solid Wastes Management Association (1992)
Facts: Illinois passed a law regulating occupational safety related to hazardous waste that overlapped with federal OSHA jurisdiction.
Issue: Did the Illinois law conflict with federal OSHA regulations, and was it preempted?
Holding: The Court held that federal OSHA preempts state laws in states without approved OSHA plans but does not preempt in states with approved plans.
Significance: Clarified that federal OSHA preemption applies only where states have not assumed OSHA enforcement via approved plans.
3. Vermont v. United States Department of Labor (2nd Circuit, 2014)
Facts: The federal OSHA alleged that Vermont’s state plan failed to meet federal standards.
Issue: Can federal OSHA override a state plan's enforcement actions or regulatory decisions?
Holding: The court affirmed federal OSHA’s supervisory authority to ensure state plans comply with federal law.
Significance: Reinforced federal OSHA’s oversight and ability to require states to conform to minimum federal standards.
4. Secretary of Labor v. York (1978)
Facts: The case involved enforcement of OSHA regulations in a state with an approved plan.
Issue: Does the Secretary of Labor have authority to enforce OSHA standards directly in states with approved plans?
Holding: The Court held that the Secretary generally cannot enforce OSHA standards directly in state plan states except in certain limited circumstances.
Significance: Defined the boundary between federal and state OSHA enforcement roles.
5. Sampson v. Murray (1987)
Facts: The case dealt with federal OSHA’s withdrawal of approval from a state plan due to enforcement deficiencies.
Issue: Can federal OSHA withdraw approval and reassume enforcement authority?
Holding: Courts upheld OSHA’s power to withdraw state plan approval if the state fails to adequately enforce standards.
Significance: Affirmed federal OSHA’s ultimate supervisory authority over state plans.
6. Industrial Safety Equipment Association v. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (D.C. Circuit, 1991)
Facts: OSHA issued a rule that conflicted with an approved state plan’s standard.
Issue: Whether OSHA’s federal rule preempts state plan rules that differ but provide equal or greater protection.
Holding: The court ruled that states with OSHA-approved plans have discretion to maintain standards that differ from federal OSHA as long as they are at least as protective.
Significance: Emphasized the balance between federal oversight and state autonomy under OSHA.
Summary: Balancing Federal Oversight and State Autonomy
States can run their own OSHA programs but must meet federal baseline standards.
Federal OSHA has broad oversight authority and can withdraw approval for inadequate state plans.
Federal OSHA preempts state law only where no approved plan exists.
Courts generally respect state flexibility in setting standards as long as minimum protections are maintained.
Disputes often focus on whether state plans are “at least as effective” as federal OSHA and whether enforcement is adequate.
RELATED Blog
0 comments