Eleventh Circuit Affirms Warrant Quash: OSHA 300 Logs Alone Not "Probable Cause"

Written on .

In a decision, USA v. Mar-Jac Poultry, Inc., published October 9, 2018, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed a District Court decision quashing an inspection warrant that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) had sought to expand a limited incident inspection to a “wall-to-wall” examination covering every facet of the employer’s facility.  The decision is significant for several reasons: First, because OSHA warrants are rarely challenged; second, because the Court upheld Constitutional limits on government power; and third, because OSHA’s argument that it could rely on the employer’s mandatory records of workplace illness and injury (OSHA 300) to supply probable cause to investigate was soundly rejected.  This case is a big “win” for employers.

Case below.  An employee at a Georgia poultry processing facility was injured while working on an electrical panel box using an uninsulated screwdriver.  The employee was hospitalized (he made a full recovery), and the employer duly reported the incident to OSHA as required by law. Controversy arose when the inspectors arrived and announced their intention not only to inspect the electrical accident and the company’s records, but also the full range of potential ergonomic, slip and trip, machine guarding, and hazardous materials programs:  in short, every square inch of the processing plant.

The employer called Larry Stine and Mark Waschak of Wimberly & Lawson and they insisted that the inspection be confined to the area where the accident occurred and denying that OSHA had sufficient probable cause to expand it. OSHA obtained a warrant, but the firm filed for an emergency hearing to quash (invalidate) the warrant for lack of probable cause.  The judge granted the motion and invited OSHA to apply for a more narrowly-tailored warrant.  Rather than reapply, OSHA appealed the decision to the Circuit Court.

Appeal. OSHA quickly abandoned one of the arguments it had made to the judge: that the poultry plant was subject to an expanded inspection because it was part of a regional emphasis program.  OSHA’s main argument on appeal was that the OSHA 300 logs, upon which covered employers are required to list serious work-related injuries and illnesses as they occur, satisfied its burden to show that it had probable cause to believe that OSHA standards were being violated.

Court’s decision. The Eleventh Circuit rejected OSHA’s argument.  The OSHA 300 log requires an employer to record illness and injury, but that is not a substitute for reasonable cause to believe a statute has been violated.  At most, it can indicate a hazard.  For example, slippery floors are a hazard, and if someone slips and falls, it could be because the floor is wet and the employees were not required to wear slip resistant shoes – a potential violation; or because an employee was running and not wearing required slip-proof footwear, which is not evidence of a potential violation.  The Court also was not impressed that some of the incidents OSHA relied on were several years old:  a handful of minor injuries, spread over 6 years in a plant with over 1000 employees, finding that was insufficient to establish probable cause for a warrant.

Why it matters.  When OSHA was first enacted, it took the position that it was above the law and did not have to comply with Constitutional protections because it was the guardian of workplace safety.  In short order the Supreme Court reminded it that no one is above the law, and that OSHA must demonstrate probable cause to believe that a violation has occurred before it can get a search warrant.  The 300 logs were designed to create a record of incidents, not to get employers in trouble.  There is not even space on the form for an employer to explain (or speculate) how or why an accident occurred. 

This decision reaffirms the Fourth Amendment principle that “no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”  This is an important protection for all employers against government overreach, and Wimberly & Lawson is pleased for our client that the Court has so ruled.

Questions?  Need more information?  Call J. Larry Stine at (404) 365-0900.

Get Email Updates

Receive newsletters and alerts directly in your email inbox. Sign up below.

Recent Content

communication bubble

E21: Employee Communication with Special Guest Louise Hughes

In this episode, we talk with Wimberly Lawson Wright Daves & Jones' office manager Louise Hughes about the importance of effective em...
Bruce r. thompson courthouse and federal building, south virginia street, reno, nv, usa

Supreme Court Gives New Grounds for Challenging Federal Regulations

Over the years, an increasing part of this country's legal system has been based not on laws passed by legislators or the Congress, but o...
Mask pattern on blue background

Recent Trends in Covid-19 Litigation

Many businesses purchase business interruption insurance to protect the company against disasters.  Almost 2,000 lawsuits have been filed...
Black Lives Matter sign, outdoors

Black Lives Matter Buttons and Bans Result in Various Legal Rulings

Cases are starting to come out now dealing with the subject of whether an employer can ban buttons pertaining to the Black Lives Matter (...
old man walking dogs outdoors

"Old White Man" Allowed to Sue Employer's Diversity and Inclusion Plan

In DiBenedetto v. AT&T Services, Inc., a 58-year-old White male defeated the defendant AT&T's efforts to dismiss his case in conn...
union sign, outdoors

E20: Union Activity in the Workplace

In this episode, host Thom Jennings and attorney Kathleen Jennings discuss union activity in the workplace and how an employer can spot i...
  • Home
  • Alerts
  • 2018
  • Eleventh Circuit Affirms Warrant Quash: OSHA 300 Logs Alone Not "Probable Cause"

Wimberly, Lawson, Steckel, Schneider & Stine

3400 Peachtree Road, Ste 400 / Lenox Towers / Atlanta, GA 30326 /404.365.0900

Where Experience Counts

Thank you for visiting the firm's website. Please note that this website is intended for general information purposes only and does not constitute an offer of representation or create an attorney-client relationship with the firm. The firm welcomes receipt of electronic mail but the act of sending electronic mail alone does not create an attorney-client relationship. You may reproduce materials available at this site for your own personal use and for non-commercial distribution. All copies must include the firm's copyright notice.

© 2022 Wimberly, Lawson, Steckel, Schneider & Stine P.C. | Site By JSM