Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission

671 F.2d 643 (1982)

From our private database of 46,000+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
671 F.2d 643 (1982)

Facts

In 1977, American Cyanamid Company (Cyanamid) adopted a fetus-protection policy that barred women of presumed childbearing capacity from holding any production job that involved occupational exposure to substances identified as toxic to fetuses. Five female production workers underwent sterilization procedures that they would not otherwise have sought so that they could retain their production jobs, and two women who refused to be sterilized were transferred to a different department with a loss of pay and benefits. The Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union (union) (plaintiff) filed a complaint with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and OSHA issued a citation to Cyanamid for willfully violating the general-duty clause of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (act). Cyanamid filed a notice of contest, and the secretary of labor (secretary) issued a formal complaint. The union elected party status under the rules of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (commission) (defendant). An administrative-law judge dismissed the citation, and both the union and the secretary petitioned for review by the full commission, which affirmed the dismissal. The union then filed a petition for review under § 11 of the act, which provided for any person aggrieved by an order of the commission to seek review in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The secretary opted not to seek further review. Cyanamid challenged the court’s jurisdiction, arguing that under § 10(c) of the act, a union’s participation in enforcement proceedings was limited to contesting the reasonableness of an abatement period.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)

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 742,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead 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.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 742,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,000 briefs, keyed to 986 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 742,000 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
  • 46,000 briefs - keyed to 986 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