American Flight Attendant’s Felony Drug Plea Dooms Job Bias Suit
An
An
The EPA announced Wednesday it will regulate dozens of ways five chemicals are used to protect workers and the environment.
The EPA has concluded there’s too much potential for 1,3-butadiene to injure workers’ health, so its uses will need to be restricted.
The Trump administration’s deregulatory agenda faces one of its toughest obstacles in rewriting a Biden-era requirement that mines cut respirable silica levels, a move industry observers say will spur new lawsuits.
The US government and other major employers like Amazon.com Inc., Deloitte LLP, and JPMorgan Chase led the continued push in 2025 for workers to return to the office from at-home arrangements established during the Covid-19 pandemic.
Insurers fighting coverage for stoneworker injury claims in a California federal court are arguing that a ruling in favor of a policyholder in a similar case in the same court is irrelevant to disputes with their policyholders.
Former workers at a Las Vegas county government building must litigate claims that Monsanto Co. contaminated the site with polychlorinated biphenyls in federal court, the Ninth Circuit ruled.
Future EPA chemical analyses are likely to reuse the agency’s recently proposed, unusual analytic methods that could downgrade formaldehyde’s estimated risks, critics predict.
Probationary federal employees would have fewer options for appealing their terminations under a new Trump administration proposal.
Among next year’s most high-profile jury trials will be mass tort cases consolidated in California federal and state courts.
As employers are making plans to return to their workplaces. How quickly they succeed will likely depend on how many of their employees get vaccinated.
Employer contests a four-item serious citation in 11 parts and $53,976 fine. The serious citation includes the alleged violation of 29.C.F.R. 1910.134(c)(1), for failure to establish and implement a written respiratory protection program with worksite-specific procedures; 29.C.F.R. 1910.134(e)(1), for failure to provide a medical evaluation to determine an employee’s ability to use a respirator before the employee was required to use the respirator in the workplace; and 29.C.F.R. 1910.134(f)(2), for failure to ensure that an employee using a tight-fitting face-piece respirator was fit tested prior to initial use of the respirator. (20-0329)
Employer contests a three-item serious citation and $6,998 fine and a repeat citation and $8,906 fine. The serious citation includes the alleged violation of 29.C.F.R. 1926.102(a)(1), for failure to ensure that eye and face protective equipment was used when machines or operations presented potential eye or face injury; 29.C.F.R. 1926.1053(b)(1), for failure to secure portable ladders used to access an upper landing surface against displacement; and 29.C.F.R. 1926.1053(b)(13), for failure to ensure that the top step of a stepladder was not used as a step. (20-0330)
Employer contests a two-item serious citation and $12,337 fine and a two-item other-than-serious citation with no fine. The serious citation includes the alleged violation of 29.C.F.R. 1910.36(d)(1), for failure to ensure that employees were able to open exit route doors from the inside at all times without keys, tools, or special knowledge; and 29.C.F.R. 1910.178(l)(4)(iii), for failure to conduct an evaluation of each powered industrial truck operator performance at least once every three years. The other-than-serious citation includes the alleged violation of 29.C.F.R. 1910.157(e)(3), for failure to perform annual maintenance checks on fire extinguishers. (20-0317)
Get the latest legal, regulatory, and enforcement news and analysis, as well as in-depth business and industry covering in the following areas: