Posts Tagged ‘Pennsylvania’

« Older Entries

A Construction Law Newsletter Provided by Harmon & Davies, P.C.

by HDlawblog Posted: Monday, 12/21/2015
Legal Punchlist
What’s Happening Now . . .

       10.7%

·         Increase in construction spending, year-to-date.

·         The first 10 months of 2015 have seen $888.1 billion in construction spending.

·         The first 10 months of 2014 were $802.3 billion.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau News, October 2015 Construction at $1,107.4 Billion Annual Rate, U.S. Dept. of Commerce (Dec. 1, 2015).

Mediation, Arbitration, and Litigation

Construction contracts often reference either mediation, arbitration, or litigation. But what’s the difference between these three?

Mediation is the use of a third-party to conduct an informal meeting for the purpose of resolving the dispute. There is no judge or jury. It is merely a mechanism to get all the parties in the same room.

Typically, but not always, the mediator is selected and hired by the parties to lead the settlement discussions. It’s also common for mediation conferences to start with all parties in a single room, discussing their grievances and desired outcomes. After the initial group discussion, it is common for each party to relocate to separate rooms, and the mediator will meet with each party individually, to facilitate points for discussion. Generally, a mediator is hoping to bring each party towards middle ground in search of a negotiated resolution.

 

It is important to ensure that mediation is conducted under the confines of 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5949. This statute provides that the communications made in mediation are inadmissible as evidence in a court of law. This protection allows the parties to speak freely, in an effort to resolve the dispute. Settlement discussions are also inadmissible in a court of law, under Pa.R.E. 408. Best practice is for all parties to agree in advance, as a ground-rule of mediation, as to whether the statements are fair game for use in court at a later point.

Mediation does not result in a binding decision. It is merely an attempt to facilitate a negotiated settlement. Arbitration, on the other hand, is a formal procedure that results in a binding decision. Arbitration does not use a judge or jury. Instead, an arbitrator presides over the arbitration and acts as the “judge and factfinder.” Arbitrators are usually practicing attorneys who likely have a concentration or level of expertise in the specific area of applicable law. Arbitration is less formal than a trial in court; it is often held in a private office, or a conference room. Although less formal than a trial, the litigants must still present testimony and evidence, in a similar manner as if presenting their case in court.

Sometimes, people use the terms “binding” or “non-binding” arbitration. These are misnomers. By definition, all arbitration is binding. If it is “non-binding arbitration” then, it is better defined as mediation. When agreeing to participate in mediation or arbitration, make sure that it is fully understood and agreed that the process is either binding or non-binding. The best way to make this clear is to use the proper terms: mediation is a non-binding; arbitration results in a binding decision. This should be clarified in writing, between the parties, as a ground-rule for participating in the process.

Litigation, in contrast, is the use of the court process. At the time of entering the contract, and at the time of any dispute arising, it is important to know whether the contract requires mediation, arbitration, or litigation.

Newsletter written by Jeffrey C. Bright, Esq. , an attorney licensed in Pennsylvania and Maryland. For more information, contact an attorney at Harmon & Davies, P.C.

Employment          Construction           Business

2306 Columbia Ave. | Lancaster, PA 17603

T: 717.291.2236 | www.h-dlaw.com

 

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Construction | Comments Off on A Construction Law Newsletter Provided by Harmon & Davies, P.C.

Legal Punchlist November 2015

by HDlawblog Posted: Monday, 11/30/2015

Legal Punchlist Newsletter (Nov. 2015)

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Construction | Comments Off on Legal Punchlist November 2015

Don’t Make Fun of the Guy Wearing Pastel Shirts

by HDlawblog Posted: Friday, 8/2/2013

I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard other guys give a male wearing a pastel shirt a hard time about his “feminine” color choice, but employers might be more apt to snuff out such joking after a recent decision by the Eastern District of California where the court held that, among other things, that calling a male worker’s pastel shirts “girly” was evidence of sex stereotyping.  Although this decision was rendered in California where the notoriously liberal Ninth Circuit has already recognized harassment and discrimination rooted in sex stereotyping as an actionable Title VII claim, the court’s message should cause all employers to worry about whether they are doing enough to create a work environment free of sex-based harassment. 

Indeed, in the matter of Felix v. Cal. Dep’t of Developmental Servs., two special investigators with California’s Department of Developmental Services alleged that they were subjected to years of coworkers’ derogatory name calling and pranks.  The plaintiffs sued under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act.  The alleged harassment consisted of, among other things: (1) coworkers joking that one of the plaintiffs dressed in “girly” clothes because he wore pink, lavender, and soft blue colored shirts; (2) coworkers making references to one of the plaintiffs and a male coworker having nipple rings and piercings on their penises that were chained together; and (3)   coworkers sending one of the plaintiffs yellow balloons with a card claiming that he had a secret admirer, which was intended to imply that he was a homosexual because an openly gay male co-worker’s favorite color was yellow.    

The court found that calling a male employee’s clothes “girly” and implying that he had a sexual relationship with male co-workers demonstrated plausible sex-based harassment under Title VII and the FEHA.  This decision should cause employers to question whether they are doing enough to eliminate potential harassment claims from the workplace.  The attorneys at Harmon & Davies are here to assist employers with such matters. 

This article is authored by attorney Shannon O. Young and is intended for educational purposes and to give you general information and a general understanding of the law only, not to provide specific legal advice. Any particular questions should be directed to your legal counsel or, if you do not have one, please feel free to contact us.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Sexual Harassment | No Comments »

Pennsylvania Federal Court Finds Former Burger King Manager Has Triable Disability Claim

by HDlawblog Posted: Wednesday, 5/29/2013

In the disability discrimination case of Buffington v. PEC Mgmt. II LLP, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania had to decide whether reasonable minds could differ over whether a former Burger King manager was fired for violating a company rule or for taking too much time off to care for her teenage son who was battling a cancer relapse.   The former manager alleged that Burger King fired her for tending to her sick son, but that the company used her violation of a company policy as a pretext for the firing, which firing was in violation of the American with Disabilities Act and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act.

How did we arrive at this mess?  Well, the former manager had been employed by Burger King for seven years with no written or oral warnings regarding her performance, but then she violated a company policy by sending an employee out to pick up product from another Burger King that the manager’s Burger King had run out of.  At that time, the former manager was the only manager on duty and the employee that she choose to pick up the product drove his own car to the nearby Burger King.  Unfortunately, the employee got into an accident while running the errand.  Yikes!  I guess you can’t always have it your way.

Anyway, the accident resulted in the former manager’s firing.  Burger King’s corporate policy forbid nonmanager employees from driving for restaurant business.  The company claimed that this violation of the corporate policy coupled with the former manager’s allegedly declining, but undocumented performance, was was grounds for termination.  The former manager disagreed and claimed that the company just used her violation of the policy as an excuse to fire her because she had been tending to her sick son.  In fact, the former manager alleged that the rule prohibiting nonmanager employees from driving for restaurant business was never enforced and that it was common practice for managers to send staff on errands to other restaurants.  The former manager also presented evidence that other mananagers outside of her protected class (i.e. employees who were not caring for sick children)had violated the policy, but were not fired.  If true, these allegations create a problem for Burger King.

It gets worse.  The former manager alleges that her supervisor met with her before her firing and that during this meeting the former manager’s supervisor commented that the restaurant needed “someone whose head is there 100 percent,” and said that now the former manager could spend more time with her son.  Ouch.  For the employer’s sake, let’s hope this isn’t true.

Based upon the above facts, following her termination, the former manager sued Burger King.  Burger King claimed that the manager was fired because her performance had been steadily declining and the violation of the company policy was the straw that broke the camel’s back.

Nonetheless, in denying Burger King’s motion for summary judgment, the Court found that the former manager sufficiently raised questions of genuine material fact regarding Burger King’s true motivation for firing the manager.  If the true reason for the termination of the manager was the manager spending time with her son, then a jury might find that Burger King relied on unfounded stereotypes or assumptions about the type of care the manager would need to give to her son in the future.

Employers’ Takeaway: 

First, enforce policies uniformly and consistently.  The former manager claimed that other managers outside of her protected class violated the vehicle policy without being fired.  Although this is merely an allegation, it serves as a reminder of the importance of uniform policy enforcement.

Second, keep good records of employee performance. Burger King claims that the manager’s performance had been declining.  If this was the case, Burger King should have kept a better record of her allegedly declining performance in the form of warnings and written evaluations.

Third, ensure that supervisors receive anti-discrimination training.  If the supervisor truly made the comments that the manager alleges she made, such comments were inappropriate.  Supervisor training might have helped to avoid such unwanted comments.

The attorneys at Harmon & Davies are here to advise employers on policy enforcement issues, performance evaluations, and supervisor training.

This article is authored by attorney Shannon O. Young and is intended for educational purposes and to give you general information and a general understanding of the law only, not to provide specific legal advice. Any particular questions should be directed to your legal counsel or, if you do not have one, please feel free to contact us.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Disability Discrimination, Labor & Employment | No Comments »

Unionville-Chadds Ford School District Sued for Age Discrimination

by HDlawblog Posted: Tuesday, 5/28/2013

By way of disclaimer, I am a graduate of the Unionville-Chadds Ford School District, which in my biased opinion is an excellent public school.  In fact, U.S. News and World Report ranks Unionville High School the  10th best public high school in Pennsylvania and the 507th best public high school in the nation, out of approximately 22,000 schools, which places it roughly in the top 2% of public schools.  Yet, despite its prestige the Unionville-Chadds Ford School District was recently sued by one of its employees for alleged discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”). 

Summarily, a paraprofessional at the school in her late 50s alleged that she was disciplined for reprimanding students while a significantly younger 30 something-year-old employee who similarly reprimanded the same group of students was praised for her actions.  Additionally, the employee alleged that the school’s principal (also a 30 something-year-old) made allegedly discriminatory comments about the employee having a “senior moment.” 

The outcome of the case remains to be seen, but the school district suffered a loss earlier this month when the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied its motion to dismiss becaues the court found that the employee plausibly alleged age discrimination.  Interestingly, it appears that it was the employee who first used the term “senior moment” when explaining to the principal why she couldn’t remember something.  When the principal, in turn, commented on the employee’s self-proclaimed senior moment, the employee complained that the principal’s statements were offensive and that he needed to be careful about commenting about a person’s mental capacity or ability.  It’s a lesson how in the employment law context the saying “what’s good for the goose, is good for the gander” does not necessarily ring true.  In other words, if an employee blames their age as the reason for their mistake, supervisors should be trained to steer clear of those traps. 

Another challenge that the school district faces is overcoming what looks like disparate treatment of employees who disciplined students under allegedly similar circumstances.  Here, the senior employee was disciplined for her actions while the 30 something-year-old employee was praised for taking allegedly similar action.  If the only distinguishing factor was the age of the employee, this case might not go well for the school district.  This is why employers need to administer discipline on a uniform basis. 

As a member of the Unionville High School class of 2000, I wish my school district the best of luck in defending this case, but then again, we are talking about a school district where an Indian remains the high school mascot. 

This article is authored by attorney Shannon O. Young and is intended for educational purposes and to give you general information and a general understanding of the law only, not to provide specific legal advice. Any particular questions should be directed to your legal counsel or, if you do not have one, please feel free to contact us.

 

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Age Discrimination, Labor & Employment | No Comments »

Which Members of the Construction Industry Are Held Strictly Liable for a Defective Product?

by HDlawblog Posted: Monday, 5/20/2013

In 2008, a worker was performing maintenance on the conveyor system at the Lancaster Municipal Authority Waste Water Treatment Plant when a large chunk of debris got caught in a roller at the end of a conveyor.  The worker tried unsuccessfully to clear the debris by spraying it with a hose.  When that didn’t work, the worker used his putty knife, while the conveyor was still running, to scrape the debris away from the roller.  In the process, the worker’s arm became caught in the conveyor’s pulley system and was amputated just below the elbow.

[Tip:  Employers, employees should be trained in safety procedures and advised never to attempt to make repairs while a machine is running.  Violations of safety procedures should be taken seriously and addressed in accordance with the company’s policies.] 

Following his injury, the worker sued several parties on theories of negligence and strict liability.  The sued parties included: (1) the engineering company that developed and designed the specifications for the conveyor system (“Buchart Horn, Inc”); (2) the company that manufactured the conveyor system and sold it to the construction company (“WRC”);  (3) the construction company that sold and installed the pre-assembled conveyor to the plant (“Johnston Construction Company”); (4)  the company that designed and manufactured the safety stop mechanism for the conveyor (“Material Control” parent company of “Conveyor Components”);  and (5) the company that represented the manufacturer of the conveyor system in the sale of the conveyor to the construction company (“Kappe Associates, Inc.”).  The defendants tried to have the case dismissed before it went to trial.  Here are the lessons to be learned:

Lesson No. 1:  If you sell any product to an owner as part of your construction or installation contract, you might be held strictly liable for defects in the product.   

The court refused to dismiss the strict liability action against Johnston Construction Company because Pennsylvania has adopted Section 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, which says that one who sells any product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer or to his property is subject to liability for physical harm thereby caused to the ultimate user or consumer.  Although the term “seller” is not defined in Section 402A, the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas court found that Johnston Construction Company was clearly a seller within the meaning of Section 402A because it sold the conveyor to the Plant as part of the installation contract.

For this same reason the court refused to dismiss the company that designed and manufactured the safety stop mechanism for the conveyor.  Despite these holdings, but for the case settling, a jury still would have had to decide whether the Johnston Construction Company’s failure to install a guard at the point on the conveyor where the plaintiff was injured did, in fact, render the conveyor defective and unsafe for its intended purposes.

Lesson No. 2:  Engineers not in the business of manufacturing or distributing equipment may not be held strictly liable, but may be held liable for negligent design.    

With regard to the defendant that developed and designed the specifications for the conveyor system, the court stated that in Pennsylvania, engineers have a duty to exercise that degree of skill and care in performing those services that ordinary and reasonable members of the engineering profession would exercise in the same or similar circumstances.  Here, Buchart was the engineering firm designated by the City of Lancaster to develop and design the conveyor system at issue.  Based on the findings in the plaintiff’s expert report, the court stated that whether Buchart breached its duty to employees of the Plant to use due skill in the design of the conveyor system raises a material question of fact.  Accordingly, the court found that there was sufficient evidence for a jury to consider whether Buchart negligently designed the conveyor system.

However, the court held that Buchart could not be subjected to a strict liability claim because it was not a seller within the meanings of Section 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts because it was not in the business of manufacturing or distributing equipment.

Lesson No. 3:  Manufacturer’s agents may be held strictly liable: 

Kappe, the company that represented the manufacturer of the conveyor system in the sale of the conveyor to the construction company, unsuccessfully argued that it was not a seller within the meaning of Section 402A and therefore could not be subject to the claim of strict liability.  In rejecting this argument, the court noted that the Pennsylvania Superior Court has held that all entities in the chain of distribution may be strictly liable for a defective product.   In another case, a manufacturer’s agent was found to be subject to a strict liability claim, despite the agent never having taken title to or possession of the product, because the court reasoned that it was not the means of marketing, but rather the fact of marketing which is fundamental to the rule of strict liability.  Here, Kappe represented WRC, the manufacturer, in finding a buyer/installer for the conveyor.  Kappe is in the business of selling and marketing maintenance equipment to wastewater treatment plants.  Kappe facilitated the sale of the conveyor between WRC and Johnston.  Accordingly, while Kappe did not select the particular product to be sold, it introduced the manufacturer to the purchasers or installer and helped to facilitate the marketing chain in the sale of a particular product.  As such, the court held that Kappe was subject to claims of strict liability.

This article is authored by attorney Shannon O. Young and is intended for educational purposes and to give you general information and a general understanding of the law only, not to provide specific legal advice. Any particular questions should be directed to your legal counsel or, if you do not have one, please feel free to contact us.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Affirmative Action Plans and OFCCP Compliance, Construction | No Comments »

Local Labor & Employment Issues: Student Guestworkers File Complaints against Harrisburg McDonald’s Franchisee

by HDlawblog Posted: Monday, 5/6/2013

Earlier this year, student guestworkers participating in the State Department’s J-1 Summer Work Travel Program filed complaints with the Department of Labor and State regarding working and housing conditions at three Harrisburg, Pennsylvania area McDonald’s franchises.  Visas under the J-1 Summer Work Travel Program are available to post-secondary students pursuing a full time post-secondary education outside of the United States who come to the United States to work and travel during summer vacation.

The complaint alleges that the franchise owner and its labor supplier, GeoVisions, engaged in various illegal practices that bring the students’ wages below minimum wage, including such practices as, deducting above-market rent from the students’ paychecks while providing substandard basement housing.  The franchisee owner and GeoVisons allegedly capitalized on the students’ desperation to work in order to pay back the debt incurred to cover the Summer Work Travel Program fees by placing the students on call at all times.  The complaint further alleges various violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, including failure to record all hours worked by students, failure to pay the students for all hours worked, unlawful deductions resulting in payment below the minimum wage, unlawful pre-employment expenses resulting in payment below the minimum wage, and failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked over 40 in a week.

This article is authored by attorney Shannon O. Young and is intended for educational purposes and to give you general information and a general understanding of the law only, not to provide specific legal advice. Any particular questions should be directed to your legal counsel or, if you do not have one, please feel free to contact us.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Labor & Employment | No Comments »

Sexual Harassment in the Deboning Department

by HDlawblog Posted: Monday, 3/25/2013

Mistakes happen to the best of us, for example, occasionally things slip through the cracks at companies when someone goes on vacation or HR gets swamped with new hires.  Yet when it comes to dealing with sexual harassment complaints employers need to be ever vigilant.  If they aren’t, the consequences of their mistakes may haunt them.

For instance, in the case of EEOC v. Farmer’s Pride, Inc., a Pennsylvania poultry processing plant came under the investigation of the EEOC after one of its male workers alleged that he was sexually harassed by his female supervisor while working in the deboning (no pun intended) department at the company’s Fredericksburg facility and his supervisor reached down his pants and touched his genitals while he was working.  The worker alleged that the female supervisor subjected several other male and female co-workers to similar harassment and that two male supervisors also acted inappropriately toward female employees.

As part of its investigation, the EEOC asked for the company to produce facility-wide information regarding whether other workers had complained of sexual harassment.  Although the company produced some information in response to an EEOC subpoena, it failed to fully comply.  The company contended that the EEOC’s investigation of the worker’s charge should be limited to the supervisors he named and the breast deboning department.  The EEOC then sued the company in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, seeking an order to show cause why its subpoena should not be enforced.

Thereafter, the court agreed ordered the company to comply with the subpoena finding that the EEOC has broad investigative authority and that the EEOC had established: (1) a legitimate purpose; (2) relevancy; (3) that the information was not already in its possession; and (4) the subpoena was not “unreasonably broad or burdensome.”  Indeed, the court found that sexual harassment complaints from elsewhere in the facility would provide context in determining whether the company’s response to sexual harassment complaints by its employees was adequate.  In other words, harassment complaints by employees elsewhere in the company’s facility would be relevant to whether the company allowed a sexually hostile environment to exist in its workplace.

Although whether the company engaged in any wrongdoing remains to be determined, the ruling on the EEOC’s right to subpoena documents regarding sexual harassment complaints on a facility-wide basis should serve as a stark reminder to employers that they need to take sexual harassment complaints seriously and have the proper policies in place for addressing such complaints.

The attorneys are Harmon & Davies are here to assist employers with all their Labor and Employment Law needs, including the handling of sexual harassment complaints and the crafting of sexual harassment policies, and protocol for dealing with sexual harassment complaints and investigations.

This article is authored by attorney Shannon O. Young and is intended for educational purposes and to give you general information and a general understanding of the law only, not to provide specific legal advice. Any particular questions should be directed to your legal counsel or, if you do not have one, please feel free to contact us.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Labor & Employment, Sexual Harassment | No Comments »

Pennsylvania Teacher Sufficiently States Claims against School District for FMLA Violations

by HDlawblog Posted: Monday, 3/18/2013

The U.S. District Court of the Middle District of Pennsylvania recently held that a first-grade teacher sufficiently stated a claim against Red Lion Area School District for violating her right Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) rights.

The case involves a teacher at Clearview Elementary School who suffers from Chron’s disease, a condition that sometimes caused her to arrive late to work.  In 2011, the teacher requested an accommodation for her condition and the HR director asked the teacher to have her physician fill out a FMLA form to determine her eligibility.  The teacher completed the forms and returned them to the HR director but he allegedly failed to further address her FMLA eligibility.  Thereafter, the teacher received her first unsatisfactory performance review in her five year tenure with the school and she was suspended.

Several months later, the teacher again requested an accommodation and a determination of her FMLA eligibility.  The school district decided to accommodate the teacher by permitting her to inform the school of required morning accommodations for flare-ups associated with her medical condition.  Nonetheless, despite granting the teacher this accommodation, the School District criticized her for using the accommodation and disciplined her for late arrivals, tardiness, and absences.  In response, the teacher once again submitted FMLA forms, but was never informed of her rights regarding FMLA leave.

Next, according to the teacher, the school district began to scrutinize her classroom protocols and teaching methods.  In early 2012, after the teacher’s attorney demanded that the school district grant the teacher’s leave request, intermittent FMLA leave was provided.  A month later, the teacher experienced another flare-up in her condition.  When she arrived to school late, she was allegedly embarrassed by the school principal for using the morning accommodation and intermittent FMLA leave and was suspended for two days without pay.  Moreover, the teacher alleges that the school principal and HR director told other employees about her Crohn’s disease and absences.

The teacher filed suit against the school district, the HR director and the principal alleging, among other things, interference with her FMLA rights and retaliation for exercising her FMLA rights.  The HR director and principal moved to dismiss based on qualified immunity from FMLA liability, but the Middle District of Pennsylvania rejected the principal’s and HR director’s arguments regarding qualified immunity on the basis that government officials are protected from liability only if their conduct does not violate clearly established rights.  Here, the officials conceded that the conduct alleged could show a violation of the FMLA.

 

The court agreed that the teacher sufficiently stated a claim for interference under the FMLA because the officials failed to give her proper notice of her eligibility for leave, placed unreasonable restrictions on her use of leave, discouraged her from using leave by disciplining her for absences, disclosed to co-workers the occasions where she used leave, and did not communicate properly the status of her FMLA requests.  Moreover, the court noted that the teacher had alleged that she was subjected to discipline in close temporal proximity to her request for FMLA leave.

The court went on to say that “it would be a misuse of qualified immunity to apply the doctrine [of qualified immunity] to insulate from suit public employees who, as is the case here, do not dispute that their acts (if proven) would violate a clearly established right but instead only take exception to liability on the basis that responsibility for their conduct should be borne by their own employer alone.”

According to the court, because the teacher’s FMLA rights were clearly established, the officials should have known that the law required them to communicate with her about her rights, and to grant her FMLA leave if medically necessary.

To avoid adverse results such as this, employers should adequately train their officials regarding FMLA obligations.  The attorneys at Harmon & Davies are available to provide such training.

This article is authored by attorney Shannon O. Young and is intended for educational purposes and to give you general information and a general understanding of the law only, not to provide specific legal advice. Any particular questions should be directed to your legal counsel or, if you do not have one, please feel free to contact us.

 

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in FMLA, Labor & Employment | No Comments »

Pennsylvania Painting Contractor Faces Nearly Half a Million Dollars in Proposed OSHA Penalties

by HDlawblog Posted: Monday, 2/4/2013

A Canonsburg, Pennsylvania based painting contractor faces nearly half a million dollars in proposed OSHA penalties for alleged safety violations at three of its projects.  The large citation includes 38 alleged violations, including 14 willful and 11 repeat violations at worksites in Slatington, Harrisburg, and Slatedale, Pennsylvania.

The alleged willful violations include failing to properly protect workers from lead exposure and failing to provide fall protection.  The repeat violations relate to employee exposure to lead above the permissible exposure level, a lack of warning signs posted in lead work areas, failure to ensure workers showered at the end of each shift, and failure to provide medical evaluations and fit tests for respirator users.

Additional alleged violations include:

  1. Failure to notify employees of the results of lead monitoring;
  2. Failure to provide employees with initial medical surveillance for lead;
  3. Failure to provide periodic blood tests for employees exposed to lead;
  4. Allowing workers to have or consume food in an area where lead exposure was above the permissible level;
  5. Failing to notify employees in writing of blood lead test results within five days;
  6. A lack of guarding on electrical wiring to prevent accidental contact; and
  7. Failure to ensure that workers wore respirators while blasting with glass media or when exposed to lead in excess of permissible limits.

 

The cited company has been under OSHA’s scrutiny for the past several years, having been inspected five times in the past five years with four of the inspections resulting in citations for serious violations.  As a result of the painting contractor’s alleged refusal to correct hazards, it has been placed on OSHA’s Severe Violator Enforcement Program, which requires targeted follow-up inspections to ensure compliance with OSHA regulations.

This article is authored by attorney Shannon O. Young and is intended for educational purposes and to give you general information and a general understanding of the law only, not to provide specific legal advice. Any particular questions should be directed to your legal counsel or, if you do not have one, please feel free to contact us.

 

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in OSHA, Safety | No Comments »
« Older Entries