P. Gioioso & Sons v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission
United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
115 F.3d 100 (1997)
- Written by Jenny Perry, JD
Facts
P. Gioioso & Sons, Inc. (Gioioso) (plaintiff) was a construction contractor. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) cited Gioioso for three violations of safety rules involving a trench in which Gioioso’s employees were working while laying water lines along a roadway. Gioioso filed a notice of contest and moved for the disqualification of the administrative-law judge (ALJ) on the grounds that the ALJ had been the prosecutor in a similar case against Gioioso several years earlier. The ALJ denied the motion and ruled in favor of OSHA on the substance of the violations. Gioioso then filed a petition for discretionary review with the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (commission) (defendant). The petition raised three issues for review and did not mention the motion to disqualify the ALJ except for a brief reference in a footnote in the context of providing information to support another argument. The commission did not act on the petition for review, and the ALJ’s ruling became final. Gioioso then sought judicial review. In presenting its case to the court, Gioioso raised the three issues that were presented to the commission and three additional issues, including whether the ALJ should have recused himself.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Selya, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.