Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status
  • D
  • Dole v. United Steelworkers of AmericaDole v. United Steelworkers of America
From our private database of 16,800+ case briefs...

Dole v. United Steelworkers of America

United States Supreme Court
494 U.S. 26 (1990)


The United States Department of Labor (DOL) (defendant), a federal agency, issued a rule that contained a disclosure requirement. This disclosure requirement obligated manufacturers to inform employees about workplace hazards. The federal Office of Management and Budget (OMB) administered the implementation of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (Act). The Act required the OMB to review and approve all information-collection requests, sometimes known as ICRs. Based on the OMB’s interpretation of the Act, the DOL’s disclosure requirement was an information-collection request. Accordingly, the OMB reviewed the DOL’s disclosure requirement and ultimately disapproved it. The DOL noted it disagreed with the OMB, but the DOL then withdrew the disclosure requirement from the rule. A labor union, the United Steelworkers of America (Steelworkers) (plaintiff), sued the DOL. The Steelworkers contended that the disclosure requirement was not an information-collection request within the meaning of the Act. If the disclosure requirement was not an information-collection request, then the OMB's disapproval of the disclosure requirement provided no grounds for the DOL's withdrawal of that requirement. Accordingly, the Steelworkers argued that the DOL should not have withdrawn the requirement that manufacturers warn their employees about workplace hazards. The court of appeals found that the DOL’s disclosure requirement was not an information-collection request as defined by the Act. Therefore, the OMB lacked authority to review the DOL’s disclosure requirement, and the appellate court ruled for the Steelworkers. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine the Act’s scope.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Brennan, J.)

Dissent (White, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 443,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 443,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 16,800 briefs, keyed to 224 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Questions & Answers

Have a question about this case?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it

Sign up for a FREE 7-day trial