Mark A. Waschak is of Counsel to the firm. Mark practices in all areas of labor and employment law and is primarily focused on occupational health and safety.
Before entering the practice of law Mark was an OSHA Safety Engineer and Compliance Officer. He also served as a Site Representative for the U.S. Department of Energy, Fernald Field Office, where he oversaw all aspects of the environmental, safety and health program. Additionally, he was Safety Director of a Fortune 500 company and has extensive loss control experience with two large worker's compensation carriers. Because Mark initially learned his trade from the business and government sides he brings a distinctive dimensionality to his work representing companies preparing for and dealing with OSHA inspections and those enmeshed in OSHA litigation.
Mark is a sought-after speaker, particularly by trade associations, on topics ranging from OSHA compliance to loss control strategy. He has been a guest lecturer for the Georgia Institute of Technology. Additionally Mark co-authored the treatise: Occupational Safety and Health Law, Compliance and Practice. (West Publishing 2008-13).
Mark received both his Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees from the Georgia Institute of Technology and his J.D. from Georgia State University. He is a member of the Georgia Bar Association.
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.
Where Experience Counts