29 C.F.R. § 2200.36
[Reserved]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3
cases, 1989–1993 · leading case: Elizabeth H. Dole, Sec'y of Labor v. Williams Enter., Inc., & Occupational Saf. & Health Review Comm'n, 876 F.2d 186 (D.C. Cir. 1989).
Elizabeth H. Dole, Sec'y of Labor v. Williams Enter., Inc., & Occupational Saf. & Health Review Comm'n, 876 F.2d 186 (D.C. Cir. 1989). “See 29 C.F.R. § 2200.36 (b). Moreover, Commission precedent clearly requires that to prevail on the “greater hazard” defense, an employer must establish the three substantive elements of the defense: “(1) the hazards of compliance with a standard are greater than the hazards of…”
A/c Elec. Co. v. Occupational Saf. & Health Review Comm'n, 956 F.2d 530 (6th Cir. 1991). “29 C.F.R. § 2200.36 (b). A/C failed to raise this defense below and thus has waived it.”
Reich v. Occupational Saf. & Health Review Comm'n, 998 F.2d 134 (3rd Cir. 1993). “§ 655 (d) (1988), and may assert certain affirmative defenses for noncomplianee before the Commission, see 29 C.F.R. § 2200.36 (1992), the initial presumption and obligation to comply remains.”
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.