L. E. Myers Co. v. Secretary of Labor

Background

This opinion is a dissent by Justice White, joined by Justice O’Connor, about an OSHA enforcement dispute. The legal question is which side must prove that a workplace accident resulted from unforeseeable employee misconduct. The Sixth Circuit held that once the Government shows an employer failed to implement an effective safety program, the employer must prove the accident was caused by unforeseeable employee misconduct rather than deficiencies in its safety program. The Court declined review of that decision.

Reasoning

The core question is who bears the burden of proof over unforeseeable employee misconduct in OSHA cases. The dissent summarizes a fractured set of approaches in the federal appeals courts: the Sixth and Eighth Circuits treat unforeseeable employee misconduct as an affirmative defense that employers must prove; some Circuits place on employers the burden of showing they enforced safety rules without first requiring the Government to meet any initial proof burden; other Circuits require the Government to prove the accident was not caused by unforeseeable employee misconduct. Justice White explains that these conflicting rules create uncertainty and make the issue central to how OSHA enforces safety standards.

Real world impact

Because the Supreme Court refused to review the Sixth Circuit ruling, the disagreement among appeals courts remains. Employers, workers, and OSHA face inconsistent rules across different regions about who must prove unforeseeable employee misconduct. Justice White says the split undermines uniform enforcement and would have warranted Supreme Court review.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice White dissented from the Court’s decision to deny review, and Justice O’Connor joined that dissent; White would have granted review to resolve the circuit split.