OSHA: Amazon Must Improve Storm Sheltering Procedures Following Deaths from Dec. Tornado

Remember the Amazon warehouse collapse from a tornado? The DOL does.

The U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration has issued a Hazard Alert Letter to Amazon, requiring the online retailer to review its severe weather emergency procedures after six contractors were fatally injured and another severely injured when a tornado struck Amazon’s Edwardsville warehouse on Dec. 10, 2021.

OSHA investigators determined that while Amazon’s severe weather emergency procedures met minimal federal safety guidelines for storm sheltering, the company should make improvements to further protect workers and contract drivers in future emergencies. OSHA does not have a standard that requires severe weather emergency plans but recommends them under the Occupational and Safety Health Act’s General Duty Clause, which requires employers to provide a place of employment free from known hazards.

“These tragic deaths have sparked discussions nationwide on the vital need for comprehensive workplace emergency plans,” said OSHA’s Regional Administrator William Donovan, in Chicago. “Employers should re-evaluate their emergency plans for the safest shelter-in-place locations and prepare before an emergency to ensure workers know where to go and how to keep themselves safe in the event of a disaster.”

OSHA’s Hazard Alert Letter recommends three areas for improvement at the Edwardsville warehouse:

• Ensure that all employees are provided training and participate in emergency weather drills.
• Include site-specific information in severe weather emergency plans.
• All audible warning devices and locations of the device should be clearly identified in the severe weather emergency plan and readily accessible.

Five of the deceased and the injured worker were independent direct service provider delivery contractors that took shelter in a bathroom on the warehouse’s south side, near the loading docks. Two worked for AB&C D.A.D Inc. of Belleville, one for Boxify Logistics of St. Louis. XSeed Delivery of Bolingbrook employed two of the other deceased workers and the injured worker. The three direct service providers will also receive hazard alert letters from OSHA encouraging them to review severe weather procedures for their drivers. The sixth worker fatally injured was employed by CBRE of Seattle as an in-house contractor assigned to the Edwardsville facility.

Learn more about how to prepare for weather-related emergencies.

Pregnancy Bias Settlement Costs Employer $70K

This modern employer has retrograde ideas on hiring pregnant women.

DLS Engineering Associates, LLC, a federal contractor based in Virginia Beach, Virginia, will pay $70,000 and furnish other relief to settle a pregnancy discrimination lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency announced April 26.

According to the EEOC’s suit, DLS offered a woman a position as an engineering logistics analyst in Jacksonville, Florida. After she told the company’s vice president that she was five months pregnant, he rescinded her offer, explaining the company could not hire someone who was pregnant.

Pregnancy discrimination violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Jacksonville Division (EEOC v. DLS Engineering Associates, LLC, Case No. 3:21-cv-1214) after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.

In addition to the $70,000 in damages, the consent decree settling the suit requires DLS to amend its equal employment opportunity policy; conduct training on pregnancy discrimination; provide reports to the EEOC; and post a notice.

“This resolution both compensates the harmed individual and provides for policy changes designed to protect future job applicants from pregnancy discrimination,” said Beatriz Andre, acting regional attorney for the EEOC’s Miami District.

The EEOC’s Miami District Office acting director, Roberto Chavez, added, “A woman should not have to fear that disclosing her pregnancy will cost her a job opportunity. Targeted EEO training will help ensure that future pregnant applicants will be fairly considered.”

The Miami District Office’s jurisdiction includes Florida, Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands. For more information about pregnancy discrimination, visit https://www.eeoc.gov/pregnancy-discrimination

For more information on pregnancy discrimination, please visit https://www.eeoc.gov/pregnancy-discrimination.

Repeat Offender: OSHA Says Food Manufacturer Indifferent to Safety, Should Pay $231K in Fines

This food maker with the warm-and-fuzzy name has an awful safety record.

Twenty times in the past five years, federal workplace safety investigators have cited a food manufacturer for exposing workers to amputation and other serious hazards.

On Oct. 30, 2021, the U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration received another employer-reported referral from Hearthside Food Solutions Inc.’s Romeoville facility after a maintenance employee suffered the amputation of one finger and the partial amputation of another while troubleshooting a carton-closing machine. Investigators determined the worker’s hand had contacted the machine’s pulley.

OSHA cited Hearthside Food Solutions, Inc. for one serious, one repeated and one willful violation for failing to use lockout/tagout procedures to control hazardous energy sources. The company also failed to test machine safety procedures periodically for effectiveness and develop adequate procedures to control hazardous energy sources.

The agency has proposed penalties of $231,625.

“OSHA standards are put in place to prevent workers from suffering life-altering injuries,” said OSHA’s Chicago South Area Director James Martineck in Tinley Park. “This company’s history of violating federal standards shows a corporate culture that lacks urgency to keep workers safe. Hearthside Food should immediately re-evaluate its training and safety procedures at all of its facilities.”

Based in Downers Grove, Hearthside Food operates 38 food production and packaging locations across the U.S. and Europe. The company makes and sells energy, snack and nutrition bars, as well as cookies, crackers, baked snacks, fresh and frozen foods under various name brands. Founded in 2009, Crain’s Chicago Business ranked the company as the 16th largest business in the Chicago area in 2019.

OSHA’s machine guarding and control of hazardous energy webpages provide information on what employers must do to limit worker exposure to machine hazards

Feds Push Safety in Wisconsin Food Facilities

If successful, the high injury rates for these workers will go down–and stay down.

The U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration established a Local Emphasis Program to reduce workplace dangers and better protect workers from machine and amputation hazards in Wisconsin food manufacturing facilities.

Food production workers in Wisconsin experience a nearly 24 percent higher injury rate than workers in other production facilities in the state. From 2014-2020, OSHA investigated multiple fatalities, dozens of amputations, fractures, and workers with crushed hands or fingers. Investigators determined that the employers failed to control hazardous energy or allowed workers to operate machines without adequate guarding.

The emphasis program seeks to improve compliance with required safety procedures among Wisconsin’s 900 food manufacturers who employ 19,000 workers that preserve and process animal products, fruits and vegetables on a seasonal and year-round basis. The program will focus on making sure employers are taking necessary steps to identify, reduce and eliminate exposure to machine hazards during production activities, and off-shift sanitation, service and maintenance tasks.

“The food production industry continues to be staffed in part by seasonal and temporary laborers who may not be fully aware of their rights or they may be afraid to communicate safety concerns,” said OSHA Regional Administrator William Donovan in Chicago. “Employers must protect their workers whether they are employed for a day, a season or year-round. They can do so by planning their training and orientation programs to emphasize proper safety precautions and ensure the procedures are explained in a language workers can understand.”

In the LEP’s initial phase, OSHA will conduct outreach with employers, professional associations, local safety councils, apprenticeship programs, local hospitals and occupational health clinics. Agency representatives will also make presentations to industry organizations and stakeholders. Employers will be encouraged to use OSHA’s free consultation services to help them implement machine safety strategies and ensure compliance with OSHA standards.

Following OSHA’s three-month outreach that began April 19, the LEP empowers OSHA to schedule and inspect select food industry employers in Wisconsin with injury rates higher than the national average.

Learn more about OSHA.

OSHA: Arizona Safety Plan on Chopping Block

The Copper State’s workplace safety program falls short, according to federal officials.

The U.S. Department of Labor April 20 announced a proposal to reconsider and revoke the final approval of Arizona’s State OSHA plan, in response to nearly a decade-long pattern of failures to adopt and enforce standards and enforcement policies at least as effective as those used by the department’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

State plans are OSHA-approved job safety and health programs operated by individual states rather than federal OSHA. The OSH Act encourages states to develop and operate their programs. OSHA approves and monitors all state plans, and provides up to 50 percent of each program’s funding.

OSHA has grown increasingly concerned that actions by the Arizona State OSHA Plan suggest the state is either unable or unwilling to maintain its commitment to provide a program for worker safety and health protection as the OSH Act requires. Arizona has, for example, failed to adopt adequate maximum penalty levels, occupational safety and health standards, National Emphasis Programs and – most recently – the COVID-19 Healthcare Emergency Temporary Standard.

If OSHA determines that a state plan is failing to comply with its obligation to remain at least as effective as OSHA, the agency may initiate proceedings to revoke final approval, and reinstate federal concurrent authority over occupational safety and health issues covered by the state plan.

The proposal is available for public inspection at the Federal Register, and will be published on April 21. With its publication, OSHA marks the start of the revocation process. The notice makes no substantive changes to the Arizona State Plan, nor does it give federal OSHA the authority to enforce occupational safety and health standards in Arizona.

Submit comments on the proposal by May 26, 2022. If necessary, OSHA will hold an online hearing on Aug. 16, 2022 at 10 a.m. EDT. Those interested in testifying or questioning witnesses must submit a notice of their intention by May 11, 2022.

Once OSHA has considered comments during the 35-day comment period, and reviewed testimony and evidence collected in the event of a hearing, the agency will publish a second Federal Register notice announcing its decision on revocation of final approval.

EEOC, OFCCP Tackle Employment History Gaps

Two government EEO agencies are teaming up to help the unemployed get back into the workforce.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the U.S. Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) will host, as part of HIRE, a virtual roundtable entitled Untapped Potential: Reimagining Equity for Workers with Gaps in Employment History to discuss challenges workers face when reentering the workforce after periods of unemployment. Speakers will highlight the barriers that caregivers, older workers, people with long-term disabilities, and formerly incarcerated individuals face when reentering the workforce, the strengths these workers offer to employers, and promising practices to attract this untapped talent.

HIRE, a Hiring Initiative to Reimagine Equity is a multi-year joint initiative that aims to boost diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA) efforts in hiring and recruitment practices to advance equal employment opportunity and help provide workers with access to good jobs.

The roundtable will be held this Thursday, April 28, 2022, 1:30 p.m. – 3:00 p.m. EDT
Registration is required. Video/Dial-in information will be sent separately upon registration.

Register at: https://eeoc.zoomgov.com/webinar/register/WN_hwUhHWDuSO2yLfV4NSCn5w
A recording will be available on the EEOC’s YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/TheEEOC.

Employer Pays $315K in ADA Settlement Stemming From Firing Employee Following Leave

Employers can’t just ignore a doctor’s release that an employee is fit to return to work following a medical leave.

S&C Electric Company, a designer and manufacturer of switching and control products for power transmission and distribution headquartered in Chicago, will pay $315,000 and furnish other relief to settle a disability discrimination lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency announced Thursday.

According to the EEOC’s suit, a principal designer who worked at S&C for over 52 years was diagnosed with cancer and later sustained a broken hip, for which he took medical leave. Following a long journey toward healing, the employee sought to return to his former position. The employee, who lived and worked in Chicago, provided numerous doctors’ notes indicating that he was fit to return to his former position, which was mostly sedentary. S&C decided, however, to fire him rather than permitting him to return to work following a perfunctory medical examination by an S&C contracted doctor.

Such conduct violates Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which prohibits discrim­ination on the basis of disability. The EEOC and the employee filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (EEOC et al. v. S&C Electric Company, Civil Action No. 17-cv-06753), after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through the EEOC’s conciliation process.

Under the 18-month consent decree settling the suit, S&C will pay $315,000 to the estate of the former employee. Further, S&C is required to maintain and provide the EEOC records of each employee at its Chicago facility who is terminated after attempting to return to work following a medical leave of absence and makes a complaint (whether orally or in writing) to S&C or to a government agency. In addition, S&C will provide two trainings conducted by outside and independent trainers to managers and all employees responsible for human resources and medical evaluations about their obligations under the ADA.

Under the decree’s terms, if a qualified employee seeks to return to work after a medical leave of absence and is able to work, with or without a reasonable accommodation, the company may not dis­criminate against that employee by firing the employee rather than bringing him or her back to work. It further enjoins S&C from engaging in any form of retaliation, as defined by the ADA, for participating in any act required by the decree, assisting the EEOC with any investigation of violations of the decree, or asserting any rights under the decree.

“The EEOC found during its pre-suit investigation of this charge that the employee was terminated because of his disability, in violation of the ADA,” said Julianne Bowman, the district director of EEOC’s Chicago office. “Employers are permitted to prevent employees from working if there is no way for them to do their job safely, but here the company disregarded the employee’s releases to return to work and failed to seek additional information to determine in greater detail what his capacities were. The ADA requires more of employers, and the EEOC will enforce it.”

Gregory Gochanour, the regional attorney of EEOC’s Chicago office, added, “Individuals with disabilities often face stereotypes in the workplace that they are incapable in some way of doing their job. Here, we had an employee who performed his job well for 52 years, fell on hard times, and when he was ready to return to the place where he had spent virtually his entire working life, he was turned away despite his qualifications. This resolution helped bring some justice to this employee and his family and will likely lead S&C and other employers to act with significantly more care when making determin­ations about returning disabled employees to work.”

For more information on disability discrimination, please visit https://www.eeoc.gov/disability-discrimination.

The EEOC’s Chicago District Office is responsible for processing charges of employment discrimination, administrative enforcement and the conduct of agency litigation in Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa and North and South Dakota, with Area Offices in Milwaukee and Minneapolis.

Alliance: OSHA, Shipbuilders Group Renew Ties

Maybe shipyard industry safety practices will rub off on other industries.

The U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the Puget Sound Shipbuilders Association in Seattle have renewed an alliance to continue a collaborative relationship that provides shipyard workers and companies with information about hazards and resources to promote safe, healthful workplaces and workers’ rights, the agency announced April 18.

First signed in 2007, the alliance will continue to build upon a culture of prevention through sharing best practices and technical knowledge. OSHA Washington Area Director Blake Skogland and PSSA President Dan Kelley will sign the alliance renewal in Seattle on April 15.

“OSHA and the Puget Sound Shipbuilders Association have combined resources to get effective workplace health and safety messages out to shipyard employees and supervisors since the inception of the alliance in 2007,” said OSHA acting Regional Administrator Christopher Adams in Seattle. “OSHA looks to continue this long-standing and successful collaboration with PSSA.”

With the renewal, OSHA and PSSA will continue to help ensure safer working conditions for shipbuilders. The two organizations will ensure employers and workers have greater access to training and resources to protect workers on the job.  

The OSHA Alliance Program fosters collaborative relationships with groups committed to worker safety and health. Alliance partners help OSHA reach targeted audiences, such as employers and workers in high-hazard industries, giving them better access to workplace safety and health tools and information.

Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, employers are responsible for providing safe and healthful workplaces for their employees. OSHA’s role is to help ensure these conditions for America’s workers by setting and enforcing standards, and providing training, education and assistance.

Learn more about OSHA.

If the Glove Fits: EEOC Recover $79K for Employee Fired After ADA Accommodation Denial

Again, an employer’s rigid stance on reasonable accommodation got it into ADA trouble.

Agropur, Inc., a dairy processor and U.S. subsidiary of Canadian-based Agropur Cooperative, will pay $79,000 and provide other relief to settle a federal disability discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced yesterday. The EEOC charged that Agropur violated federal law at its Grand Rapids, Michigan plant by failing to provide an employee with a disability with a reasonable accommodation, which resulted in her discharge.

According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, Agropur refused to accommodate the employee’s severe dyshidrotic eczema, a skin condition. While working for Agropur, the employee learned she was allergic to rubber and plastics. She requested a reasonable accommodation, including the ability to wear a different type of glove while working.

Instead of accommodating the employee, Agropur forced her to leave work when she had flare-ups, the EEOC said. When she left work, she was penalized by receiving attendance points. Ultimately, the EEOC said, Agropur fired her after she had accumulated attendance points that accrued as a direct result of the company’s failure to provide her with a reasonable accommodation.

Such alleged conduct violates the Americans with Disabilities Act. After attempting to reach a pre-litigation resolution through its conciliation process, the EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan (EEOC v. Agropur, Inc., Case No. 1:21-CV-00765).

In addition to the monetary relief, the consent decree settling the suit provides for injunctive relief, training on the ADA, and compliance-related reporting to the EEOC.

“Adhering to an inflexible no-fault attendance policy may violate the ADA,” explained EEOC trial attorney Nedra Campbell. “Employers should determine whether an employee who needs leave because of a medical condition is entitled to an accommodation under the ADA. Agropur should be commended both for agreeing to a consent decree early in this litigation and committing to ensure its managerial and human resource employees are trained on the ADA.”

Agropur, Inc. is a dairy processor that produces cheese, whey products and dairy ingredients with its approximately 2,800 employees located throughout the United States. It is a wholly owned subsidiary of Agropur Cooperative, a Canadian-based diary processor.

The EEOC’s Detroit Field Office is part of the Indianapolis District Office, which oversees Michigan, Indiana, Kentucky and parts of Ohio.

EEOC: Restaurants Blew it On ADEA Compliance

These sophisticated NYC restaurants displayed their lack thereof in dealing with older job applicants, the government alleged.

Hillstone Restaurant Group, Inc. violated federal law by denying employment to applicants age 40 and over for front-of-house positions at its two New York City locations because of their age, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit filed April 14.

Hillstone Restaurant Group is a private, family-owned company which operates approximately 40 upscale restaurants across the country under various brand names, including Hillstone.

According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, despite a highly qualified pool of applicants 40 and older, Hillstone refused to hire those individuals for front-facing positions (servers, hosts/greeters, and bartenders) at its Midtown and Park Avenue South locations. Hillstone’s senior managers rejected qualified applicants because they were deemed “too old” or “not the demographic” Hillstone wanted to hire, instead favoring much younger – and much less qualified – applicants.

Such conduct violates the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), which prohibits employers from discriminating based on age. The EEOC filed suit (EEOC v. Hillstone Restaurant Group, Inc., Civil Action No. 1:22-cv-03108) in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York after the parties were unable to reach a pre-litigation settlement through the EEOC’s conciliation process.

The EEOC seeks back pay and liquidated damages for the applicants age 40 and over who were denied jobs because of their age. The EEOC also seeks strong injunctive relief designed to remedy and prevent age discrimination in the future. The agency’s litigation effort will be led by Trial Attorney Renay Oliver and Supervisory Trial Attorney Nora Curtin.

“Unfortunately, the restaurant industry continues to be one where many employers openly dis­criminate based on age with respect to public-facing roles,” said Jeffrey Burstein, regional attorney for the EEOC’s New York District Office. “The EEOC’s prosecution of this case will disabuse them of the notion that they may do so without consequences.”

Judy Keenan, district director of the New York District Office, added, “The EEOC stands ready to enforce the right of older applicants to be judged by their qualifications, not their age.”

For more information on age discrimination, please visit https://www.eeoc.gov/age-discrimination.

The EEOC’s New York District Office is responsible for addressing discrimination charges and conducting agency litigation in Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, northern New Jersey, Rhode Island and Vermont.