Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

Emblematic of Trouble: EEOC Sues Store For Not Accommodating Religious Objectors to Uniform

Uniformity is fine in a dress code–up till the point it becomes religious discrimination.

The Kroger Company, doing business as Kroger Store No. 625 in Conway, Ark., violated federal law when it fired two employees who asked for a religious accommodation to avoid wearing an emblem they believed contradicted their religious beliefs, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit it filed September 14.         

According to the EEOC’s suit, the Conway Kroger implemented a new dress code, which included an apron depicting a rainbow-colored heart emblem on the bib of the apron. The women believed the emblem endorsed LGBTQ values and that wearing it would violate their religious beliefs. According to the EEOC, one woman offered to wear the apron with the emblem covered and the other offered to wear a different apron without the emblem, but the company made no attempt to accommodate their requests. When the women still refused to wear the apron with the emblem visible, the EEOC charged, Kroger retaliated against them by disciplining and ultimately discharging them.           

Such alleged conduct violates the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Central Division, Civil Action No. 4:20-cv-01099, after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. The suit seeks monetary relief in the form of back pay and compensatory damages, as well as an injunction against future discrimination.                       

“Companies have an obligation under Title VII to consider requests for religious accommodations, and it is illegal to terminate employees for requesting an accommodation for their religious beliefs,” said Delner-Franklin Thomas, district director of the EEOC’s Memphis District Office, which has jurisdiction over Arkansas, Tennessee and portions of Mississippi. “The EEOC protects the rights of the LGBTQ community, but it also protects the rights of religious people.”                       

The Kroger Company is the largest supermarket by revenue in the United States and the second-largest general retailer.

EEOC: Call Center Wrote Off Employee for Promotion to Due to His Visual Impairment

Because this employer had blinders on, a visually impairment employee was denied a fair chance for a promotion, the feds alleged.

National hotel giant Red Roof Inns, Inc. violated federal law when it refused to promote an employee because of his visual impairment, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit filed last Monday.

According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, an employee of the Red Roof Inns’ Corporate Call Center in Springfield, Ohio expressed interest in a promotion to a newly available position there. Red Roof Inns refused to accommodate the emp­loyee in his attempt to learn more about and compete for the pro­mo­tion, stating it would be a waste of his time to apply for the position because his visual impairment could not be accommodated.

Rejecting a qualified employee because of a disability, or failing to consider accommodations for employees with disabilities, violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The EEOC asserts that the company’s actions were intentional and demonstrated a reckless indifference to the qualified emp­loyee’s federally protected rights.          

The EEOC filed suit (Case No. 3:20-cv-00381 in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, at Dayton) after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement through its administrative conciliation process. The agency is seeking back pay and com­pensatory and punitive damages against Red Roof Inns as well as a permanent injunction to prevent the company from engaging in future discrimination against its visually impaired employees.

“Denying a promotional opportunity to a qualified visually impaired employee solely because of his disability is illegal, and it should be,” said Michelle Eisele, district director for the EEOC’s Indiana­polis District Office.

Kenneth L. Bird, regional attorney of the Indianapolis District Office, said, “Protecting the employee’s right to receive a reasonable accommodation to apply for a promotion is central to the EEOC’s mission.”

The Indianapolis District Office of the EEOC oversees Indiana, Michigan, Kentucky, and parts of Ohio.

Creating an Inclusive Workplace

When employees feel included, everyone benefits, says regular guest blogger Robin Paggi. Robin is the training coordinator at Worklogic HR. She is the author of a forthcoming Gen Z – Managing the Newest Generation in the Workforce scheduled for publication and sale on April 6, 2021.

Creating an Inclusive Workplace

We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal. Throughout the years, people have debated whether the founding fathers really meant “all people” and not just “all men” when they declared their independence from England. Regardless of their intent, what has been evident for most of our country’s history is that anyone who is not a white, Christian, able-bodied, heterosexual male has not been treated equally nor afforded the same rights as them, including in employment.

Although our country officially began in 1776, it wasn’t until almost 200 years later that federal laws began to be enacted to level the playing field in the workplace. A sampling of these laws include:

Equal Pay Act (1963) – prohibits sex-based wage discrimination between men and women in the same establishment who perform jobs that require substantially equal skill, effort, and responsibility under similar working conditions.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (1964) – prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, national origin, and sex.

Pregnancy Discrimination Act (1978) – prohibits discrimination based on pregnancy.

Americans with Disabilities Act (1990) – prohibits discrimination based on disabilities.

U.S. Supreme Court adds Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity to Title VII’s list of protected classes (2020).

These laws prohibit discrimination, but they don’t necessarily prevent it from happening. Take a look at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission website at https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/search for lists of lawsuits filed by the government against employers this year to get an idea of the discrimination that continues to take place in employment.

Discrimination is a way of excluding people from the workplace. However, allowing people to work doesn’t necessarily mean they feel included.

Have you ever felt excluded? I have. I was at a fundraiser, sitting at a table, and talking with two friends. Someone they know came up to the table, sat down, and proceeded to talk to my friends without acknowledging or making eye contact with me. My friends uncharacteristically did not introduce me to their acquaintance, and the three of them chatted away while I just sat there, feeling invisible. I left after a few minutes because the feeling of being excluded was so unsettling.

I’m not alone in this feeling. Research has demonstrated that being left out like that has the same effect on our brains as being punched in the gut – it psychologically hurts. If that situation regularly happened to me at work, I would eventually leave the organization because of it.

In her article “What to Do When You Feel Left Out at Work,” Katie Heaney said, “workplace exclusion isn’t just about hurt feelings — it’s often also an indicator of an office’s equity” and included this quote by Jessica Methot, an associate professor of human resource management at Rutgers University: “We know that people typically get promoted through referrals and their informal friendship networks, so it’s not only about the emotional feeling of being excluded or alienated, even though that’s a really big issue.”

Because of the previously mentioned employment laws, most everyone gets to have a seat at the worktable. Unfortunately, diversity does not equal inclusion (cultural change catalyst Verna Myers explained, “Diversity is being invited to the party; inclusion is being asked to dance”). Therefore, people who are not in the majority group (white, Christian, able-bodied, heterosexual, male) are frequently left out of the conversation leaving them feeling invisible and alone. Here are some examples:

Forty-eight percent of women surveyed felt excluded from the decision-making process at work, even when the decisions affected their job. Source: “Almost Half Of Women Don’t Feel Included In The Decision-Making Process At Work,” https://www.bustle.com/p/women-dont-feel-included-at-work- survey-finds-especially-in-these-areas-52931

Black and brown workers were more likely than whites to say they felt alienated and emotionally distant from their co-workers. Source: “Loneliness and the Workplace 2020 U.S. Report,”
https://www.cigna.com/static/www-cigna-com/docs/about-us/newsroom/studies-and- reports/combatting-loneliness/cigna-2020-loneliness-report.pdf

Many people of non-Christian religions don’t feel comfortable bringing their whole selves to work. Source: “3 ways to build a religiously inclusive work culture,” https://hrexecutive.com/3-ways-to-build- a-religiously-inclusive-work-culture/

Employees with disabilities tend to be less satisfied with their organization and its workplace climate and perceive fewer opportunities for advancement than their non-disabled colleagues. Source: “Inclusion of People with Disabilities in the Workplace,” https://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1145&context=student

Seventy-five percent of LGBTQ employees reported having negative day-to-day interactions related to their sexual identity with co-workers last year. Source: “A New LGBTQ Workforce Has Arrived – Inclusive Cultures Must Follow,” https://www.bcg.com/publications/2020/inclusive-cultures-must- follow-new-lgbtq-workforce

In an inclusive workplace, all employees feel welcomed, valued, integrated, and part of the team instead of feeling invisible and alone. Not surprisingly, it takes deliberate action to create this kind of environment. In her article “6 Steps for Building an Inclusive Workplace,” Kathy Gurchiek said these actions include:

  1. Educating leaders about what inclusiveness is and why it’s important. Because daily interactions are the most telling sign of whether a company is inclusive or not, everyone (or at least employees in a supervisory position) should receive training on how to be inclusive (for example, introducing yourself and making eye contact with everyone in a group when you’re talking).
    While I’m not a fan of making people attend training they don’t want to attend, if it’s not mandatory, the people who really need it won’t show up. Also, people usually don’t change their behavior unless there are consequences for not doing so. So, supervisors especially need to be held accountable for demonstrating inclusive behavior.
  2. Forming an Inclusion Council. You’re probably thinking, “oh great, another committee.” Here’s the reason for this suggestion: you’ve got to have a dedicated group of people who really want an inclusive workplace to make it happen. The council should be as diverse as possible, with members not only representing different ethnicities, genders, etc. but also different levels, departments, and locations of the organization. The primary responsibility of the council is to review organizational feedback, troubleshoot challenges, and relay information to the organization’s leaders.
  3. Celebrating differences. “One of the most important ways to show employees that you respect their backgrounds and traditions is to invite them to share those in the workplace,” said Gurchiek. The sharing can be done through things like food, clothing, and holiday traditions.
  4. Listening to employees. Employee surveys and focus groups are great ways to discover how employees feel about issues like inclusiveness. While listening, it’s important not to get defensive. After listening, it’s important to do something with the information you’ve obtained.
  5. Holding more-effective meetings. There are a variety of ways to make meetings more inclusive, such as:
  • distributing meeting material in advance so employees for whom English is a second language and introverted employees who like to process information before responding may be better prepared,
  • ensuring employees working from home have the technology they need to participate,
  • rotating meeting times to accommodate different time zones or shifts,
  • ensuring meeting dates don’t conflict with religious holidays,
  • ensuring employees are courteous to each other and don’t interrupt, have side conversations, or make rude remarks, and
  • banning technology so employees aren’t distracted.

6. Communicating goals and measuring progress. Just like any other strategic initiative, it’s important to gather data about your company’s current level of inclusiveness, identify shortcomings, create quantifiable goals, and communicate progress on a regular basis.

Is all this work worth it? Research conducted by Deloitte Consulting that involved 245 global organizations and more than 70 client interviews revealed that organizations with inclusive cultures are twice as likely to meet or exceed financial targets and six times more likely to anticipate change and respond effectively.

Why do inclusive organizations get these kinds of results? It’s simple – when people feel included, they perform better. As Alexis Herman, former U.S. Secretary of Labor, said, “Inclusion and fairness in the workplace…is not simply the right thing to do; it’s the smart thing to do.”

Scrubbed: EEOC Says Jail Health Service Violated Nurse’s Religious Right to Wear Skirt

This employer should have been more accommodating of a nurse’s request to be able to dress modestly, the feds charged.

Tennessee-based Wellpath, LLC, a provider of health services in correctional facilities, violated federal law when it refused to accommodate the religious beliefs of a nurse, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit it filed Monday.

According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, a nurse who is a practicing Apostolic Pentecostal Christian was hired by Wellpath to work in the GEO Central Texas Correctional Facility in downtown San Antonio. Before reporting to work, the nurse told a Wellpath human resources employee that her religious beliefs require her to dress modestly and to wear a scrub skirt instead of scrub pants while at work. In response, Wellpath denied the request for her religion-based accommodation and rescinded the nurse’s job offer.  According to the suit, the nurse had worn a scrub skirt in other nursing jobs, including at a juvenile correctional facility.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based on religion and requires employers to reasonably accommodate an applicant’s or employee’s sincerely held religious beliefs unless it would pose an undue hardship. The EEOC filed suit, Civil Action No. 5:20-cv-1092, in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division, after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. In this case, the EEOC seeks back pay, com­pensatory and punitive damages and injunctive relief, including an order barring Wellpath from engag­ing in discriminatory treatment in the future.

“This nurse has treated patients and performed her job successfully while wearing a scrub skirt before,” said Philip Moss, a trial attorney in the EEOC’s San Antonio Field Office. “The EEOC is fully committed to enforcing laws that protect employees in the workplace from discrimination on the basis of religion.”

Eduardo Juarez, a supervisory trial attorney in the EEOC’s San Antonio Field Office, added, “Employers are required to reasonably adjust their dress codes to accommodate the religious beliefs of applicants or employees, unless these actions would constitute an undue hardship.”

EEOC: Light Duty Denial to Pregnant Employee by Medical Transport Co. Was Rights Violation

This employer needs to brush up on the law regarding job accommodations for pregnant women.

Rural/Metro Corporation of Florida, doing business as American Medical Response (AMR), a Florida company that provides emergency and non-emergency medical transport in the Orlando area, violated federal law by refusing to accommodate an employee with a pregnancy-related disability, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit filed Monday.

According to the EEOC’s suit, the employee worked for AMR as an emergency medical technician when she was pregnant. When the employee began experiencing severe medical com­plications, including hyperemesis gravidarum (a severe form of morning sickness that may include nausea, vomiting, weight loss and dehydration), she asked AMR for light duty as a reasonable accommodation.

However, even though AMR accommodates employees who are temporarily unable to perform their regular duties, AMR refused to accommodate her because its policy was limited to employees with occupational injuries or illnesses. Instead, AMR told her, “if you can’t get on the truck, you have to fill out your FMLA,” the EEOC said. AMR also refused to allow her to receive cross-training while she was on leave.

Such alleged conduct violates both Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division (EEOC v. Rural Metro Corp. d/b/a American Medical Response, Case No. 6:20-cv-01678) after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settle­ment through its concili­ation process. The agency seeks back pay and compensatory and punitive damages for the female employee, as well as injunctive relief such as employee training on discrimination laws.

“Title VII, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, makes it unlawful for employers to refuse to accommodate pregnant employees where they accommodate others who are similar in their ability or inability to work,” said Robert E. Weisberg, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Miami District. “When the employee also suffers from pregnancy-related complications that rise to the level of a disa­bility, the employer is under an additional obligation to provide a reasonable accommodation under the ADA.”

Bradley Anderson, acting district director of the EEOC’s Miami District Office, added, “Employers must not discriminate against either pregnant women or people with disabilities who request accommodation. Pregnant women should not be deprived of the right to work and earn an income.”

N.J. Hospital Cited for Coronavirus Infractions

Hospitals were slammed with coronavirus cases early on, yet federal workplace safety rules still apply.

The U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has cited CarePlus Bergen Inc., doing business as Bergen New Bridge Medical Center, for violating respiratory protection standards at its Paramus, New Jersey, location. OSHA cited the hospital for two serious violations, with proposed penalties of $9,639.

Based on a coronavirus-related inspection, OSHA cited the Bergen New Bridge Medical Center for failing to fit test tight-fitting face piece respirators on employees who were required to use them. The hospital also failed to train employees on proper respirator use and ensure employees understood when to wear a respirator.

“Employers must take action to protect their employees during the pandemic, including implementing effective respiratory protection programs,” said OSHA Hasbrouck Heights Area Office Director Lisa Levy. “OSHA standards require healthcare workers to be fit-tested to ensure the respirators they use provide adequate protection.” 

Employers with questions on compliance with OSHA standards should contact their local OSHA office for guidance and assistance at 800-321-OSHA (6742). OSHA’s COVID-19 response webpage offers extensive resources for addressing safety and health hazards during the evolving coronavirus pandemic.

The company has 15 business days from receipt of the citations and penalties to comply, request an informal conference with OSHA’s area director or contest the findings before the independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission.

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 working men and women by setting and enforcing standards, and providing training, education and assistance. For more information, visit http://www.osha.gov.

OSHA Tweaks Railroad Crane Safety Rule

Equipment typically considered a crane might not be a crane when doing railway roadway work.

That’s the gist of an update to a final rule announced yesterday.

The U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) published a final rule Monday amending the agency’s crane standard. The final rule will maintain safety and health protections for workers, while reducing compliance burdens.

The final rule adds certain exemptions and clarifications to recognize the unique equipment and circumstances in railway roadway work. The rule also reflects that some OSHA requirements, with regard to the operation of railroad roadway maintenance machines equipped with cranes, are preempted by Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) regulations.

What is exempted?

  • Flash-butt welding trucks, a specialized piece of equipment used in railroad work that meets the technical definition of a crane, but does not present the types of safety hazards that OSHA intended to address in the crane standard; and
  • Using rail stops and rail clamps; restricting out-of-level work; prohibiting dragging a load sideways; having a boom-hoist limiting device for hydraulic cylinder equipped booms; and following manufacturer’s guidance for the use and modification of equipment.

Operator training and certification will follow FRA’s regulatory requirements.

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 working men and women by setting and enforcing standards, and providing training, education, and assistance. For more information, visit www.osha.gov.

EEOC: Chipolte Let Crew Member Harass Manager, Then Fired Manager for Complaining

Typically, it’s the manager who harasses the subordinate, not the other way around. Here was different.

Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., an international restaurant chain, violated federal law when a Tampa location service manager was sexually harassed by a coworker and fired in retaliation for complaining about it, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit filed Thursday.

According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, a Chipotle crew person repeatedly made sexually offensive remarks and inappropriately touched the service manager. The conduct escalated into two sexual assaults on the same day. Having already repeatedly reported the harassment to the store’s management prior to the assaults, the service manager told the store management that she planned to report the sexual assaults to corporate headquarters. Within three days, she was terminated.

Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on sex and retaliation against workers who object to such discrimination.

The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida (EEOC v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.,Case No. 8:20-cv-02128) after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. The lawsuit asks the court to order Chipotle to provide the service manager back pay, front pay, and compensatory and punitive damages. The EEOC also asks the court to order Chipotle to institute policies and practices that prevent and eliminate sexual harassment in its workplace.

“Employers have a duty to protect their workforce from sexual harassment when they learn that it is occurring,” said Bradley A. Anderson, acting district director of the EEOC’s Miami District Office. “Ignoring complaints of sexual harassment and failing to take action to remedy the problematic behavior violates federal law.”

Robert E. Weisberg, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Miami District Office, added, “Employers must not retaliate against employees who report discrimination. The EEOC is com­mitted to enforcing the law’s prohibitions against retaliation as a necessary step to achieving workplaces free of discrimination.”

The EEOC’s Miami District Office is comprised of the Miami, Tampa, and San Juan offices and has jurisdiction over most of Florida, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The EEOC’s Miami District employs multiple bilingual investigators who speak English, Spanish, Haitian Creole, French and Portuguese.

Walmart Jettisons Physical Ability Test, Pays $20M to Settle Sex Bias Lawsuit With the EEOC

It’s a new–and better–day for women applying for jobs at WalMart distribution centers.

Walmart, Inc. will pay $20 million, stop using a pre-employment test, and furnish other relief to settle a companywide, sex-based hiring discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employ­ment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency announced Thursday.

According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, Walmart conducted a physical ability test (known as the PAT) as a requirement for applicants to be hired as order fillers at Walmart’s grocery distribution centers nationwide. The EEOC said the PAT disproportionately excludes female applicants from jobs as grocery order fillers.

This alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, prohibits employment discrimination based on sex, including the use of tests administered to all applicants and employees regardless of sex but that cause a discriminatory effect or impact on persons of a particular sex or any other demographic category. Employers using such tests must prove the practices are necessary for the safe and efficient performance of the specific jobs. Even if this necessity is proven, such tests are prohibited if it is shown there are alternative practices that can achieve the employer’s objectives but have a less discriminatory effect.

The EEOC filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, London Division. (EEOC v. Walmart, Inc., Case No. 6:20-cv-00163-KKC) on Aug. 3, 2020, after first attempting to reach a settlement through its prelitigation voluntary conciliation process. The parties reached agreement and filed a joint motion to approve a consent decree that same day. The motion was approved by the court and the consent decree was entered on Sept. 9, 2020.

The consent decree requires Walmart to cease all physical ability testing currently being used for purposes of hiring grocery distribution center order fillers. The decree also requires Walmart to pay $20 million into a settlement fund to pay lost wages to women across the country who were denied grocery order filler positions because of the testing.   

Michelle Eisele, EEOC Indianapolis district director said, “One of the EEOC’s six national priorities is eliminating barriers in recruitment and hiring. Employers need to ensure their testing and screening practices do not discriminate against any group.”

“The parties were able to reach an early resolution of this case due to Walmart’s willingness to engage in settlement discussions. Distribution center jobs provide good career opportunities for women when sex-based barriers to hiring for those jobs are removed,” said EEOC Regional Attorney Kenneth L. Bird.

“Walmart operates 44 grocery distribution centers nationwide. Elimination of the PAT will allow more women to obtain a relatively high-paying entry-level position at one of these centers – a necessary first-step toward advancement,” added EEOC Senior Trial Attorney Aimee L. McFerren.

The Louisville Area Office of the EEOC is part of the EEOC’s Indianapolis District, with jurisdiction over Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, and parts of Ohio.

Assembly Line Justice: OSHA Hits Meat Packager With Fine for Exposing Workers to Coronavirus

Is this a one-off or a sign of things to come?

The U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has cited Smithfield Packaged Meats Corp. in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, for failing to protect employees from exposure to the coronavirus. OSHA proposed a penalty of $13,494, the maximum allowed by law.

Based on a coronavirus-related inspection, OSHA cited the company for one violation of the general duty clause for failing to provide a workplace free from recognized hazards that can cause death or serious harm. At least 1,294 Smithfield workers contracted coronavirus, and four employees died from the virus in the spring of 2020.

“Employers must quickly implement appropriate measures to protect their workers’ safety and health,” said OSHA Sioux Falls Area Director Sheila Stanley. “Employers must meet their obligations and take the necessary actions to prevent the spread of coronavirus at their worksite.”

OSHA guidance details proactive measures employers can take to protect workers from the coronavirus, such as social distancing measures and the use of physical barriers, face shields and face coverings when employees are unable to physically distance at least 6 feet from each other. OSHA guidance also advises that employers should provide safety and health information through training, visual aids, and other means to communicate important safety warnings in a language their workers understand.

Smithfield has 15 business days from receipt of the citation and penalty to comply, request an informal conference with OSHA’s area director or contest the findings before the independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission.

Employers with questions on compliance with OSHA standards should contact their local OSHA office for guidance and assistance at 800-321-OSHA (6742). OSHA’s coronavirus response webpage offers extensive resources for addressing safety and health hazards during the evolving coronavirus pandemic.

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 working men and women by setting and enforcing standards, and providing training, education and assistance. For more information, visit https://www.osha.gov.