National Association of Home Builders v. Occupational Safety and Health Administration

602 F.3d 464 (2010)

From our private database of 46,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

National Association of Home Builders v. Occupational Safety and Health Administration

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
602 F.3d 464 (2010)

Facts

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) (defendant) amended its health and safety standards for the use of respirators and associated training to clarify that an employer’s failure to provide respirators or training when applicable would constitute a separate violation for each employee who did not receive the respirator or training. The rulemaking was in response to a decision of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (commission), an independent tribunal that hears employer objections to citations issued by the United States secretary of labor (secretary). In that case, an employer had hired 11 workers to renovate a building containing asbestos but did not train the workers or provide them with respirators. The secretary charged the employer with 11 violations of the training standard and 11 violations of the respirator standard. The commission rejected the secretary’s employee-by-employee approach and found that the OSHA standards obligated the employer to implement a single training program and to provide respirators to the employees as a group. Thus, only two violations had occurred. The commission also noted that, if desired, the secretary could draft clearer standards to prescribe that violations would be cited on an individualized basis. The National Association of Home Builders and two other trade associations (plaintiffs) petitioned for judicial review of the amended rule, arguing that OSHA was not authorized under the Occupational Safety and Health Act (act) to specify units of prosecution because that power was vested in the commission.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Randolph, 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 832,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  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.

Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,500 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership