State worker protections can supersede federal rules
Reprints
A recent California Supreme Court ruling underscored the principle that states can adopt stronger workplace safety protections than those offered by the federal government, according to legal experts.
The goal of the federal Occupational and Safety Health Act in 1970 was to address the problem of “uneven and inadequate state protection of employee health and safety by creating a minimum level of protection throughout the country,” according to a California Supreme Court judge’s comments on Solus Industrial Innovations L.L.C. et al. v. The Superior Court of Orange County.
In 1973, California was among the first states to take the protections further by creating its California Occupational Safety and Health Act, which the court found to be approved by the federal government.
“Federal OSH Act allowed states to opt out and have their own plan (and) California’s is a more robust plan,” said Carla J. Gunnin, an Atlanta-based partner with Jackson Lewis P.C. “Plans have to be at least as effective as the federal plan; (the federal OSH Act) doesn’t say it can’t be more effective.”
“This decision (against Solus) supports this type of state program,” said Mandana Massoumi, a Costa Mesa, California-based partner with Manatt, Phelps & Phillips L.L.P.
“If you have these state regulations that are in line with the same interests as the federal regulations, then you can potentially not be pre-empted by federal law.”
Read Next
-
States ramp up safety prosecutions
In the absence of stiff criminal penalties for workplace safety violations at the federal level, local prosecutors in the United States are showing signs that they are willing to go after employers who willfully violate standards when violations result in employee fatalities.
