Court Limits Scope Of OSHA Inspections

Based upon a communication from Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete, LLP the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently found that OSHA could not expand the scope of an injury-based inspection to a wall-to-wall inspection based on the employer’s OSHA 300 Logs.

An employee at Mar-Jac Poultry in Georgia was injured and hospitalized while attempting to repair an electrical panel.  OSHA began their inspection by focusing on the accident, but then sought to conduct a wall-to-wall inspection of the entire facility, Mar-Jac consented only to the focused scope of the inspection and provided, among other documents, its OSHA 300 Logs for two years.

Based on the OSHA 300 Logs, as well as the fact that Mar-Jac was included within the Regional Emphasis Program for Poultry Processing Facilities, OSHA sought and was granted a warrant to inspect the entire facility for a wide range of safety and health issues, including ergonomic, biological, and chemical hazards. 

Mar-Jac filed an emergency motion to quash the warrant. An evidentiary hearing was held before the magistrate who issued the warrant, and he decided to quash the warrant. The federal District Court judge agreed with the magistrate.   OSHA then appealed to the Eleventh Circuit.

OSHA argued that the injuries and illnesses on the OSHA 300 logs created reasonable suspicion of hazards which suggested the existence of violations. The Eleventh Circuit rejected this argument, finding that a recordable injury or illness does not by itself show that it resulted from an OSHA violation. The Court distinguished hazards from violations, explaining that the existence of a hazard does not necessarily establish a violation. A violation must be shown to demonstrate reasonable suspicion in a warrant application. 

While encouraging, this case was issued as an unpublished decision, meaning that it can be cited and relied upon to support arguments in future cases but is not a binding precedent in the Eleventh Circuit. The decision is also not binding on federal courts outside the Eleventh Circuit.  

In addition, the decision was based on the facts presented by OSHA to support the warrant in this particular case. The specific facts supporting a warrant application will always vary, and therefore Mar-Jac should not be interpreted to mean that a court will never issue a warrant based on the cases recorded on an OSHA 300 Log. This is an important decision that all employers should have handy should OSHA attempt to expand its inspection.

United States v. Mar-Jac Poultry, Inc.

Jim Stanley is one of the nation’s most respected occupational safety consultants. Former No. 2 at OSHA, former VP of Safety and Health at AK Steel. Leads our Expert Witness and OSHA Compliance programs. FDRsafety offers unparalleled expertise in helping companies fully comply with OSHA requirements and address the current climate of heightened enforcement. For a FREE consultation, please contact us.