6 California opinions name it 1 courts 1996–2025 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Cabesuela v. Browning-Ferris Industries of California, Inc.green2 sentences2025(Id., subd. (b); see also Cabesuela v. Browning-Ferris Industries of California, Inc. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 101, 109 [§ 6310 does not necessarily require “ ‘an OSHA standard or order [be] violated’ ”].) In this case, Thomas alleged Dainty and SCPMG retaliated against him after his December 9, 2016, complaint about the staircase. 2025(Id., subd. (b); see also Cabesuela v. Browning-Ferris Industries of California, Inc. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 101, 109 [§ 6310 does not necessarily require “ ‘an OSHA standard or order [be] violated’ ”].) In this case, Thomas alleged Dainty and SCPMG retaliated against him after his December 9, 2016, complaint about the staircase. | 1 | 3 |
Hentzel v. Singer Co.green2 sentences1998It appears to contradict Justice Grodin’s pronouncement that “. . . an employee is protected against discharge or discrimination for complaining in good faith about working conditions or practices which he reasonably believes to be unsafe, whether or not there exists at the time of the complaint an OSHA standard or order which is being violated.” (Hentzel v. Singer Co. (1982) 138 Cal.App.3d 290, 299-300 [ 188 Cal.Rptr. 159 , 35 A.L.R.4th 1015 ], italics added, fn. omitted.) We agree that an employee must be protected against discharge for a good faith complaint about working conditions which h 1998It appears to contradict Justice Grodin’s pronouncement that “. . . an employee is protected against discharge or discrimination for complaining in good faith about working conditions or practices which he reasonably believes to be unsafe, whether or not there exists at the time of the complaint an OSHA standard or order which is being violated.” (Hentzel v. Singer Co. (1982) 138 Cal.App.3d 290, 299-300 [ 188 Cal.Rptr. 159 , 35 A.L.R.4th 1015 ], italics added, fn. omitted.) We agree that an employee must be protected against discharge for a good faith complaint about working conditions which h | 1 | 1 |
United Air Lines, Inc. v. Occupational Safety & Health Appeals Boardgreen2 sentences1997(See United Air *208 Lines, Inc. v. Occupational Safety & Health Appeals Bd. (1982) 32 Cal.3d 762, 773 [ 187 Cal.Rptr. 387 , 654 P.2d 157 ].) “Fed/OSHA reached the same conclusion in a 1978 Program Directive: ‘. . . [653(b)(1)] limitations are strictly binding only on the Federal program. 1997(See United Air *208 Lines, Inc. v. Occupational Safety & Health Appeals Bd. (1982) 32 Cal.3d 762, 773 [ 187 Cal.Rptr. 387 , 654 P.2d 157 ].) “Fed/OSHA reached the same conclusion in a 1978 Program Directive: ‘. . . [653(b)(1)] limitations are strictly binding only on the Federal program. | 1 | 1 |
Salwasser Manufacturing Co. v. Occupational Safety & Health Appeals Boardgreen2 sentences1996(Salwasser Manufacturing Co. v. Occupational Saf & *1347 Health Appeals Bd. (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 625, 630 [ 262 Cal.Rptr. 836 ].) “It is the primary object of the search which determines what type of probable cause showing is required.” (Id., at p. 631; Michigan v. Clifford (1984) 464 U.S. 287, 294 [ 78 L.Ed.2d 477, 484-485 , 104 S.Ct. 641 ].) The Fifth District has adopted the federal OSHA standard of “administrative probable cause” for Cal-OSHA inspections even though the latter could ultimately result in a criminal investigation (unlike federal OSHA). ( Salwasser, supra, 214 Cal.App.3d 625 1996(Salwasser Manufacturing Co. v. Occupational Saf & *1347 Health Appeals Bd. (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 625, 630 [ 262 Cal.Rptr. 836 ].) “It is the primary object of the search which determines what type of probable cause showing is required.” (Id., at p. 631; Michigan v. Clifford (1984) 464 U.S. 287, 294 [ 78 L.Ed.2d 477, 484-485 , 104 S.Ct. 641 ].) The Fifth District has adopted the federal OSHA standard of “administrative probable cause” for Cal-OSHA inspections even though the latter could ultimately result in a criminal investigation (unlike federal OSHA). ( Salwasser, supra, 214 Cal.App.3d 625 | 1 | 1 |
Michigan v. Cliffordgreen2 sentences1996(Salwasser Manufacturing Co. v. Occupational Saf & *1347 Health Appeals Bd. (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 625, 630 [ 262 Cal.Rptr. 836 ].) “It is the primary object of the search which determines what type of probable cause showing is required.” (Id., at p. 631; Michigan v. Clifford (1984) 464 U.S. 287, 294 [ 78 L.Ed.2d 477, 484-485 , 104 S.Ct. 641 ].) The Fifth District has adopted the federal OSHA standard of “administrative probable cause” for Cal-OSHA inspections even though the latter could ultimately result in a criminal investigation (unlike federal OSHA). ( Salwasser, supra, 214 Cal.App.3d 625 1996(Salwasser Manufacturing Co. v. Occupational Saf & *1347 Health Appeals Bd. (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 625, 630 [ 262 Cal.Rptr. 836 ].) “It is the primary object of the search which determines what type of probable cause showing is required.” (Id., at p. 631; Michigan v. Clifford (1984) 464 U.S. 287, 294 [ 78 L.Ed.2d 477, 484-485 , 104 S.Ct. 641 ].) The Fifth District has adopted the federal OSHA standard of “administrative probable cause” for Cal-OSHA inspections even though the latter could ultimately result in a criminal investigation (unlike federal OSHA). ( Salwasser, supra, 214 Cal.App.3d 625 | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
cluster 384977
green
2 sentences1997Its holding turned on the preemption provision of the Occupational Health and Safety Act at 29 United States Code section 653 (b)(1), which provides: “Nothing in this chapter shall apply to working conditions of employees with respect to which other Federal agencies, and State [OSHA] agencies . . . exercise statutory authority to prescribe or enforce standards or regulations affecting occupational safety or health.” The court found that the particular OSHA standard at issue covered the same working condition regulated by the Department of Transportation. ( 636 F. 2d at p. 915 .) The court conc 1997Its holding turned on the preemption provision of the Occupational Health and Safety Act at 29 United States Code section 653 (b)(1), which provides: “Nothing in this chapter shall apply to working conditions of employees with respect to which other Federal agencies, and State [OSHA] agencies . . . exercise statutory authority to prescribe or enforce standards or regulations affecting occupational safety or health.” The court found that the particular OSHA standard at issue covered the same working condition regulated by the Department of Transportation. ( 636 F. 2d at p. 915 .) The court conc | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.