(a) General requirements. The employer shall ensure that each affected employee uses protective footwear when working in areas where there is a danger of foot injuries due to falling or rolling objects, or objects piercing the sole, or when the use of protective footwear will protect the affected employee from an electrical hazard, such as a static-discharge or electric-shock hazard, that remains after the employer takes other necessary protective measures.
(b) Criteria for protective footwear. (1) Protective footwear must comply with any of the following consensus standards:
(i) ASTM F-2412-2005, “Standard Test Methods for Foot Protection,” and ASTM F-2413-2005, “Standard Specification for Performance Requirements for Protective Footwear,” which are incorporated by reference in § 1910.6;
(ii) ANSI Z41-1999, “American National Standard for Personal Protection—Protective Footwear,” which is incorporated by reference in § 1910.6; or
(iii) ANSI Z41-1991, “American National Standard for Personal Protection—Protective Footwear,” which is incorporated by reference in § 1910.6.
(2) Protective footwear that the employer demonstrates is at least as effective as protective footwear that is constructed in accordance with one of the above consensus standards will be deemed to be in compliance with the requirements of this section.
[59 FR 16362, Apr. 6, 1994; 59 FR 33911, July 1, 1994, as amended at 61 FR 9238, Mar. 7, 1996; 61 FR 19548, May 2, 1996; 61 FR 21228, May 9, 1996; 74 FR 46356, Sept. 9, 2009; 79 FR 20629, Apr. 11, 2014]
Notes of Decisions
James Sharbono v. N. States Power Co., 902 F.3d 891 (8th Cir. 2018).
“29 C.F.R. § 1910.136 (b)(2). But Sharbono never disputed the company's interpretation of the regulation during the interactive process, and the employer made good faith efforts to secure a boot that met the performance standards for safety footwear and bore the ASTM stamp.”
Am. Airlines, Inc. v. Sec'y of Labor, 578 F.2d 38 (2d Cir. 1978).
“OSHA argues that 29 C.F.R. § 1910.136 , which sets specifications for safety footwear, is a sufficiently specific provision, and that it requires the use of steel-toed safety shoes whenever a potential hazard to feet is found.”
Badilla v. Wal-Mart Stores East, Inc., 2013 NMCA 58 (N.M. Ct. App. 2013).
“DISCUSSION {5} The sole issue we face is whether a breach of warranty lawsuit that only seeks 1 29 C.F.R. § 1910.136 (2009) (outlining what footwear employers must ensure employees use under the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, which requires protection against…”
Badilla v. Wal-Mart Stores East Inc., 2015 NMSC 029 (N.M. 2015).
“1 (citing 29 C.F.R. § 1910.136 (2009)). 10 Plaintiff wore the boots eight to twelve hours per day, six days a week, for about nine 11 months.”
Badilla v. Wal-Mart Stores East, Inc., 2013 NMCA 058 (N.M. 2013).
“MILES HANISEE, Judge 29 C.F.R. § 1910.136 (2009) (outlining what footwear employers must ensure employees use under the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, which requires protection against falling or rolling objects, obj ects piercing the sole, and when an employee’s…”
Badilla v. Wal-Mart Stores East, Inc., 2015 NMSC 29 (N.M. 2015).
“” Plaintiff states that this unglued piece of the sole of the boots caused him to trip, fall over, and injure his back.”
Sharbono v. N. States Power Co., 218 F. Supp. 3d 1004 (D. Minnesota 2016).
“29 C.F.R. § 1910.136 . The regulation, however, does not require that safety-toed footwear be marked as ASTM compliant.”
Holmes v. Gen. Dynamics Mission Sys., Inc., 382 F. Supp. 3d 529 (W.D. Va. 2019).
“General Dynamics asserts that the protective footwear requirement is necessary to fulfill its legal obligations under 29 C.F.R. § 1910.136 (a), which mandates that an employer "shall ensure that each affected employee uses protective footwear when working in areas where there is…”
Hines v. United States, 81 F. App'x 201 (9th Cir. 2003).
“§ 7902 note; 29 C.F.R. § 1910.136 (a) & (b). The BOP’s decision to issue steel-toed boots to inmates and to allow the inmates to wear the boots during non-working hours was a discretionary act not precluded by any statute, regulation, or policy.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.