To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.
On February 25, 2021, San Francisco Superior Court Judge Ethan
Schulman denied applications for preliminary
injunctions in their entirety requested by two plaintiffs, thus
leaving in place the California Division of Occupational Safety and
Health s (Cal/OSHA) COVID-19 Emergency Temporary
Standards (ETS). The ETS took effect on November 30,
2020.
Judge Schulman found that the plaintiffs had not met their
burden of showing that they would likely prevail on the merits of
the case. He concluded that Cal/OSHA s Occupational Safety and
Health Standards Board had the authority to promulgate the ETS
On February 3, 2021, we blogged about “
The Challenge to the Cal/OSHA Regulations is Rejected
That day has come, and last week Judge Shulman (in a 40-page decision) emphatically and unambiguously denied the parties’ request for a preliminary injunction, in its entirety. Judge Schulman’s opinion pointed out how Cal/OSHA issued the emergency regulations “[o]n November 30, 2020, as the COVID-19 pandemic surged out of control in California and across the country…,” and “[n]ow as the United States passes the grim milestone of half a million deaths from the pandemic, Plaintiffs in these related cases … seek a preliminary injunction restraining the Board from enforcing the ETS Regulations.
San Francisco Judge Denies Injunctive Relief Allowing Cal/OSHA COVID-19 Emergency Temporary Standards to Remain in Place Friday, March 5, 2021
On February 25, 2021, San Francisco Superior Court Judge Ethan Schulman denied applications for preliminary injunctions in their entirety requested by two plaintiffs, thus leaving in place the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health’s (Cal/OSHA) COVID-19 Emergency Temporary Standards (ETS). The ETS took effect on November 30, 2020.
Judge Schulman found that the plaintiffs had not met their burden of showing that they would likely prevail on the merits on the case. He concluded that Cal/OSHA’s Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board had the authority to promulgate the ETS because the COVID-19 pandemic had created an emergency. The judge held that the court was required to accord “substantial deference” to the agency’s finding of an emergency, and he declined to “second-guess” the Standards Boa
03/02/21
WorkCompAcademy.com
Sacramento, CA - Following the implementation of the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health s (Cal/OSHA) COVID-19 Emergency Temporary Standards (ETS) on November 30, 2020, several employers and trade associations filed a lawsuit in San Francisco Superior Court for declaratory and injunctive relief against Cal/OSHA.
The lawsuit, National Retail Federation, et al. v. California Department of Industrial Relations, et al. (Case No. CGC20588367), was the first filed seeking to prevent the agency from enforcing the ETS.
Shortly thereafter, the Western Growers Association filed a related case in Los Angeles Superior Court. However, in an effort to avoid duplicative and inconsistent rulings, the Western Growers Association lawsuit was transferred to San Francisco and the cases are being heard together.
held that the Plaintiffs could not show that they were likely to prevail on their
claims that the regulation violated (1) the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, (2) the Administrative Procedure Act, or (3) that Cal/OSHA exceeded its legal authority. As such, Judge Schulman refused to enjoin the measure, permitting enforcement of the same to proceed.
PRO Act Provisions Moving Through Employment Agencies? As our wonderful colleague
Kyllan Kershaw out of our Atlanta office noted during our
podcast on the PRO Act, the legislation, as a monolith, faces an unlikely and uphill path to enactment. However, the Act does represent a sort of labor “wish list.” And many of the items on that wish list appear to be passing through the various federal employment agencies. For example, something akin to California’s ABC test for worker classification could likely see its way through the DOL Rulemaking process – which we discussed