Workforce Bulletin

After more than five years in the making (and nearly a full year of delays), on Thursday, October 5, 2023, the World Wide Web Consortium (the “W3C”), the private organization focused on enhancing online user experiences, published the long-awaited update to its Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.1 (“WCAG 2.1”), known as the WCAG 2.2 (https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/#new-features-in-wcag-2-2). 

Those who have been following along with website accessibility’s ever-evolving legal landscape are well aware that, despite not having been formally adopted by ...

On March 15, 2022, President Biden signed into law the 2022 Consolidated Appropriations Act containing the Cyber Incident Reporting for Critical Infrastructure Act of 2022 (the “Cyber Incident Reporting Act”). While President Biden’s remarks highlighted the $13.6 billion in funding “to address Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the impact on surrounding countries,” the 2022 Consolidated Appropriations Act contained numerous other laws, including the Cyber Incident Reporting Act, which should not be overlooked. The Cyber Incident Reporting Act puts in motion important new cybersecurity reporting requirements that will likely apply to businesses in almost every major sector of the economy, including health care, financial services, energy, transportation and commercial facilities. Critical infrastructure entities should monitor the upcoming rule-making by the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (“CISA”), as the final regulations will clarify the scope and application of the new law.

As those of you who have followed my thoughts on the state of the website accessibility legal landscape over the years are well aware, businesses in all industries continue to face an onslaught of demand letters and state and federal court lawsuits (often on multiple occasions, at times in the same jurisdiction) based on the concept that a business’ website is inaccessible to individuals with disabilities.  One of the primary reasons for this unfortunate situation is the lack of regulations or other guidance from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) which withdrew long-pending ...

Complying with employment law has become increasingly difficult given that various states and municipalities have passed legislation that seemingly contradicts federal guidance.[1] One state law that has been in the spotlight is North Carolina’s House Bill 2, the “Public Facilities Privacy and Security Act” (“HB2”), which was passed in an emergency legislative session on March 23, 2016, to overturn a local ordinance that was set to extend anti-discrimination protections to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (“LGBT”) individuals and would have allowed ...

The United States Department of Justice recently released technical guidelines aimed at cur”tail”ing proliferating efforts purporting to expand the meaning of “service animal” under the Americans With Disabilities Act (“ADA”). Under the ADA, public accommodations (e.g. restaurants, hotels, retail establishments, theaters, and concert halls) must permit the use of service animals by disabled individuals. These technical guidelines take aim at increasing claims that a variety of animals (e.g. a pigs) are service animals because they provide emotional ...

While 2014 was certainly a noteworthy year under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“Title III”), July 26, 2015, will mark the 25th anniversary of the ADA (“25th Anniversary”), an event that will almost certainly be celebrated with significant developments impacting the scope of Title III’s coverage. The U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”), charged with regulating Title III, is expected to advance and finalize regulations affecting a variety of industries, including, in some instances, financial services. Additionally, it would be reasonable to ...

By: Jordan B. Schwartz and Eric J. Conn

Section 17(e) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (“OSH Act”) provides for a Class B misdemeanor criminal penalty, including imprisonment up to six months and substantial monetary fines if an employer’s willful violation of any OSHA standard causes the death of an employee.  Section 17(e) states:

“Any employer who willfully violates any standard, rule, or order promulgated pursuant to Section 6 of this Act, or of any regulations proscribed pursuant to this Act, and that violation caused death to any employee, shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or by imprisonment for not more than six months, or by both.”

Pursuant to the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, 18 USC § 3551 et seq., which standardized penalties and sentences for federal offenses, the criminal penalty for willful violations of the OSH Act causing loss of human life was amended to be punishable by fines up to $250,000 for individuals (18 U.S.C. Sec. 3574(b)(4)), and $500,000 for organizations (id. at Sec. 574(c)(4)).

To obtain a conviction under Section 17(e), a prosecutor must establish beyond a reasonable doubt (unlike the lower civil standard for ordinary OSHA enforcement actions) that:

1. An OSHA Standard (not the General Duty Clause) was violated;
2. The violation was committed by the employer;
   • Courts evaluating OSH Act criminal prosecutions distinguish between “employees” and “employers.” Only in extremely rare circumstances are individuals considered to exert so much control over a corporate entity that the individual would be considered, for all intents and purposes, to be “the employer” for purposes of an OSH Act criminal charge. Although a corporate officer or director might in some circumstances be deemed to be the “employer,” this is only in the case where “an officer’s or director’s role in a corporate entity (particularly a small one) may be so pervasive and total that the officer or director is in fact the corporation and is therefore an employer under §666(e).” U.S. v. Cusack, 806 F. Supp. 47, 50 (D.N.J. 1992).
3. The violation of the Standard was the direct cause of an employee’s death; and
   • Prosecutors must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the conduct which amounts to the violation of an OSHA standard was both the “cause in fact” (i.e., the employer’s conduct was the “but-for cause” of the accident) and the “legal cause” (the harm was a foreseeable and natural result of the conduct) of the injury.
4. The violation was committed Willfully by the employer.
   • Courts are in substantial agreement that “willfully” under Section 17(e) refers to a deliberate action taken by the employer with knowledge of both the hazardous condition and the OSH Act’s requirements (i.e., the employer knew the conduct was dangerous and unlawful).

Here is some guidance on the Justice Department’s website about OSH Act criminal cases.

In the forty years since Congress enacted the OSH Act, there have been more than 400,000 workplace fatalities, yet fewer than eighty total OSH Act criminal cases have been prosecuted – less than two per year-- and only approximately a dozen have resulted in criminal convictions.  Historically, the prosecutions have typically targeted cases in which the employers were alleged to have falsified documents and lied to OSHA in conjunction with violations related to an employee fatality.  The cover-up was worse than the crime.  Chronic violators and employers who demonstrated a systematic rejection of worker safety laws also appear to have been more likely to face charges.

Recently, however, OSHA has begun to increase the frequency in which it refers cases to the Justice Department for investigation by a U.S. Attorney and possible criminal sanctions.  In fact, we have been told off-the-record from several representatives within OSHA and the Department of Labor Solicitor’s office (OSHA’s lawyers), that as a matter of policy, OSHA now makes a criminal referral in every case involving an employee fatality and a willful violation.  Regardless whether that is in fact happening, in the past few years, we have certainly seen a rise in the instances of charges being brought and/or significant plea deals being negotiated.