Wal-Mart Agrees to Precedent-Setting Corporate-Wide Settlement with OSHA Over Shopping Cart Full of Violations

by Holland & Knight LLP
Contact

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) announced Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.'s corporate-wide settlement agreement with the U.S. Department of Labor ("settlement") on August 7, 2013. The announcement was made by David Michaels, assistant secretary of labor for OSHA. The settlement is the result of two separate OSHA inspections and enforcement procedures commencing in August 2011 at a Wal-Mart Superstore in Rochester, N.Y. The inspections resulted in the issuance of two separate citations containing more than two dozen violations ("citations") of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (Act). The citations also carried penalties of $365,000.

As conditions of the settlement, Wal-Mart agreed to take affirmative measures to improve employee safety and health conditions not only in its Rochester store, but also in 2,857 other Wal-Mart and Sam's Club stores (together, "settlement entities") across the 28 states within federal OSHA jurisdiction. Under the terms of the settlement, Wal-Mart is required to improve training related to hazard communications, the use of trash compactors and the handling of dangerous cleaning chemicals. In return, and among other benefits and concessions by OSHA in light of the citations, Wal-Mart received nearly a 50 percent reduction of the total penalty and will pay $190,000. According to Secretary Michaels, the settlement "will help keep thousands of exposed Wal-Mart employees safe and healthy on the job ... . OSHA will use all the tools at [its] disposal to ensure that all employers follow the law." Wal-Mart, the world's largest retailer and a completely non-union operation in the United States, did not concede a violation of the Act at the Rochester location or anywhere else.

OSHA Rocks the Boat in Rochester

OSHA first visited Wal-Mart's Rochester store in early August of 2011, after receiving anonymous complaints from a Wal-Mart employee concerning dangerous conditions risking the health and safety of employees. After additional inspections of the premises, OSHA found a total of 26 violations of the Act. The vast majority of the many alleged violations in the citations were categorized as either "serious" or "repeat," and asserted a litany of alleged violations of the Act including, but not limited to:

  • deficiencies and dangers concerning a lack of personal protective equipment
  • existence of fall hazards
  • absence of lockout/tagout procedures on a trash compactor
  • unguarded machinery
  • lack of training for employees on how to use personal protective equipment
  • lack of information and training for employees on the handling and use of hazardous chemicals
  • obstructed exit routes

According to OSHA's guidelines, a "serious" violation occurs when there is substantial probability that death or serious physical harm could result from a hazard about which the employer knew or should have known. A serious violation can carry a fine of up to $7,000. A "repeat" violation occurs when an employer has been found to have committed a substantially similar violation or a different violation creating a similar hazard — even at another location — within the past three years. Each repeat violation can result in a fine of up to $70,000. According to OSHA, within the three years preceding the citations (2008 and 2011), OSHA had cited Wal-Mart for similar violations or for different violations creating similar hazards at Wal-Mart stores and other facilities located in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Missouri, New York, North Dakota and Oklahoma. Importantly, a final order from the Department of Labor on a repeat violation makes OSHA's efforts considerably easier in future situations in finding a "willful" violation against the same employer, for the same violation or for causing a similar hazard. A violation of the Act is characterized "willful" when the employer "intentionally and knowingly" violates the act or where the employer is aware that a hazardous condition exists, knows that the condition violates a standard or other obligation of the Act and makes no reasonable effort to eliminate it. A willful violation, where a fatality occurs, can result in a fine of up to $500,000 and carry a jail term of up to six months.

Settlement Sets New Standard for OSHA Enforcement

Such corporate-wide settlements are rare but not unprecedented; OSHA had successfully obtained a corporate-wide settlement in 2012 against DeMoulas Super Markets. But the settlement includes the unprecedented requirement by OSHA that Wal-Mart, at its own expense, arrange for independent third-party monitors to inspect at least 80 percent of the settlement entities under federal OSHA jurisdiction every four months for the duration of the settlement's two-year term. The monitors, as specifically detailed in the settlement, are to audit and-report on those parts of the settlement that concern equipment and work procedures, including confirming that the trash compactor locking devices are functioning properly; reviewing relevant records, including those dealing with training; and have reign to conduct interviews with "relevant store personnel as "appropriate." The settlement also provides that "the [22] state plan states are encouraged to honor or agree to the terms of the [settlement]." Accordingly, the settlement has the potential to cover additional stores, beyond the nearly 2,900 explicitly included in the settlement. Finally, under the settlement, in addition to the significant reduction in total penalty, OSHA agreed to vacate, group and/or reclassify more than half of the total violations in the citations.

Wal-Mart — No Easy Settlement Target for OSHA

Wal-Mart remains locked in another ongoing well-publicized battle with OSHA. On Black Friday, 2008, an employee was trampled to death inside a Wal-Mart store in Valley Stream, N.Y., by a stampede of shoppers. Relying upon the "General Duty Clause" (GDC), Section (5)(a)(1) of the Act, OSHA proposed a $7,000 fine, the maximum allowed, for Wal-Mart's failure to provide a safe workplace to employees. The GDC, used by OSHA when no specific regulatory standard applies to the situation at hand, requires employers to provide their employees with a place of employment that is "free from recognized hazards that are causing or likely to cause death or serious physical harm to employees." According to OSHA, the risk of stampeding crowds looking for holiday bargains was a known hazard. There is no specific OSHA standard on crowd control, but after the Wal-Mart Black Friday incident, OSHA issued its "Crowd Management Safety Guidelines for Retailers."

In 2011, an OSHA administrative law judge (ALJ) upheld the violation and penalty and Wal-Mart appealed the ALJ's decision to a single judge within the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission which ruled that Wal-Mart's "precautions to protect its employees were minimal and ineffective." Despite the relatively small fine, Wal-Mart appealed again, now to a three-member panel of the commission. According to Wal-Mart spokesperson Steve Restivo, justifying the more than $2 million already spent contesting the violation, the particular single item citation has "far-reaching implications which, if left unchallenged or otherwise upheld, could result in "unfairly harsh penalties and restrictions on future sales promotions."

Why the Wal-Mart Settlement Should Matter to Employers

The settlement further confirms OSHA's strategy and efficacy in using its considerable leverage to force large retailers with a physical presence across the United States to take significant steps to ensure that their safety and health policies comply with the Act's requirements. Large retail employers, especially those with a sizeable and multi-facility geographic footprint across the U.S., should take note of the settlement and be cognizant of its scope and breadth. In light of the settlement, department store and chain retailers, movie theaters and nightclubs, hospitality facilities (restaurants, hotels, resorts, etc.) and healthcare employers operating in multiple locations should now consider taking a fresh look at and doing a comprehensive review of their safety and health practices and overall level of compliance with the Act.   

- See more at: http://www.hklaw.com/publications/Wal-Mart-Agrees-to-Precedent-Setting-Corporate-Wide-Settlement-with-OSHA-09-04-2013/#sthash.Jw0GC3kI.dpuf

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) announced Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.'s corporate-wide settlement agreement with the U.S. Department of Labor ("settlement") on August 7, 2013. The announcement was made by David Michaels, assistant secretary of labor for OSHA. The settlement is the result of two separate OSHA inspections and enforcement procedures commencing in August 2011 at a Wal-Mart Superstore in Rochester, N.Y. The inspections resulted in the issuance of two separate citations containing more than two dozen violations ("citations") of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (Act). The citations also carried penalties of $365,000.

As conditions of the settlement, Wal-Mart agreed to take affirmative measures to improve employee safety and health conditions not only in its Rochester store, but also in 2,857 other Wal-Mart and Sam's Club stores (together, "settlement entities") across the 28 states within federal OSHA jurisdiction. Under the terms of the settlement, Wal-Mart is required to improve training related to hazard communications, the use of trash compactors and the handling of dangerous cleaning chemicals. In return, and among other benefits and concessions by OSHA in light of the citations, Wal-Mart received nearly a 50 percent reduction of the total penalty and will pay $190,000. According to Secretary Michaels, the settlement "will help keep thousands of exposed Wal-Mart employees safe and healthy on the job ... . OSHA will use all the tools at [its] disposal to ensure that all employers follow the law." Wal-Mart, the world's largest retailer and a completely non-union operation in the United States, did not concede a violation of the Act at the Rochester location or anywhere else.

OSHA Rocks the Boat in Rochester

OSHA first visited Wal-Mart's Rochester store in early August of 2011, after receiving anonymous complaints from a Wal-Mart employee concerning dangerous conditions risking the health and safety of employees. After additional inspections of the premises, OSHA found a total of 26 violations of the Act. The vast majority of the many alleged violations in the citations were categorized as either "serious" or "repeat," and asserted a litany of alleged violations of the Act including, but not limited to:

  • deficiencies and dangers concerning a lack of personal protective equipment
  • existence of fall hazards
  • absence of lockout/tagout procedures on a trash compactor
  • unguarded machinery
  • lack of training for employees on how to use personal protective equipment
  • lack of information and training for employees on the handling and use of hazardous chemicals
  • obstructed exit routes

According to OSHA's guidelines, a "serious" violation occurs when there is substantial probability that death or serious physical harm could result from a hazard about which the employer knew or should have known. A serious violation can carry a fine of up to $7,000. A "repeat" violation occurs when an employer has been found to have committed a substantially similar violation or a different violation creating a similar hazard — even at another location — within the past three years. Each repeat violation can result in a fine of up to $70,000. According to OSHA, within the three years preceding the citations (2008 and 2011), OSHA had cited Wal-Mart for similar violations or for different violations creating similar hazards at Wal-Mart stores and other facilities located in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Missouri, New York, North Dakota and Oklahoma. Importantly, a final order from the Department of Labor on a repeat violation makes OSHA's efforts considerably easier in future situations in finding a "willful" violation against the same employer, for the same violation or for causing a similar hazard. A violation of the Act is characterized "willful" when the employer "intentionally and knowingly" violates the act or where the employer is aware that a hazardous condition exists, knows that the condition violates a standard or other obligation of the Act and makes no reasonable effort to eliminate it. A willful violation, where a fatality occurs, can result in a fine of up to $500,000 and carry a jail term of up to six months.

Settlement Sets New Standard for OSHA Enforcement

Such corporate-wide settlements are rare but not unprecedented; OSHA had successfully obtained a corporate-wide settlement in 2012 against DeMoulas Super Markets. But the settlement includes the unprecedented requirement by OSHA that Wal-Mart, at its own expense, arrange for independent third-party monitors to inspect at least 80 percent of the settlement entities under federal OSHA jurisdiction every four months for the duration of the settlement's two-year term. The monitors, as specifically detailed in the settlement, are to audit and-report on those parts of the settlement that concern equipment and work procedures, including confirming that the trash compactor locking devices are functioning properly; reviewing relevant records, including those dealing with training; and have reign to conduct interviews with "relevant store personnel as "appropriate." The settlement also provides that "the [22] state plan states are encouraged to honor or agree to the terms of the [settlement]." Accordingly, the settlement has the potential to cover additional stores, beyond the nearly 2,900 explicitly included in the settlement. Finally, under the settlement, in addition to the significant reduction in total penalty, OSHA agreed to vacate, group and/or reclassify more than half of the total violations in the citations.

Wal-Mart — No Easy Settlement Target for OSHA

Wal-Mart remains locked in another ongoing well-publicized battle with OSHA. On Black Friday, 2008, an employee was trampled to death inside a Wal-Mart store in Valley Stream, N.Y., by a stampede of shoppers. Relying upon the "General Duty Clause" (GDC), Section (5)(a)(1) of the Act, OSHA proposed a $7,000 fine, the maximum allowed, for Wal-Mart's failure to provide a safe workplace to employees. The GDC, used by OSHA when no specific regulatory standard applies to the situation at hand, requires employers to provide their employees with a place of employment that is "free from recognized hazards that are causing or likely to cause death or serious physical harm to employees." According to OSHA, the risk of stampeding crowds looking for holiday bargains was a known hazard. There is no specific OSHA standard on crowd control, but after the Wal-Mart Black Friday incident, OSHA issued its "Crowd Management Safety Guidelines for Retailers."

In 2011, an OSHA administrative law judge (ALJ) upheld the violation and penalty and Wal-Mart appealed the ALJ's decision to a single judge within the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission which ruled that Wal-Mart's "precautions to protect its employees were minimal and ineffective." Despite the relatively small fine, Wal-Mart appealed again, now to a three-member panel of the commission. According to Wal-Mart spokesperson Steve Restivo, justifying the more than $2 million already spent contesting the violation, the particular single item citation has "far-reaching implications which, if left unchallenged or otherwise upheld, could result in "unfairly harsh penalties and restrictions on future sales promotions."

Why the Wal-Mart Settlement Should Matter to Employers

The settlement further confirms OSHA's strategy and efficacy in using its considerable leverage to force large retailers with a physical presence across the United States to take significant steps to ensure that their safety and health policies comply with the Act's requirements. Large retail employers, especially those with a sizeable and multi-facility geographic footprint across the U.S., should take note of the settlement and be cognizant of its scope and breadth. In light of the settlement, department store and chain retailers, movie theaters and nightclubs, hospitality facilities (restaurants, hotels, resorts, etc.) and healthcare employers operating in multiple locations should now consider taking a fresh look at and doing a comprehensive review of their safety and health practices and overall level of compliance with the Act.  

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Holland & Knight LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Holland & Knight LLP
Contact
more
less

Holland & Knight LLP on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):
hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.
Feedback? Tell us what you think of the new jdsupra.com!