29 U.S.C. § 654
Duties of employers and employees
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 550
cases (65 in the last 5 years), 1973–2026 · leading case: Solis v. Summit Contractors, Inc., 558 F.3d 815 (8th Cir. 2009).
Solis v. Summit Contractors, Inc., 558 F.3d 815 (8th Cir. 2009). “29 U.S.C. § 654 . Subsection (a)(1) creates a general duty running only to an employer's own employees, while subsection (a)(2) creates a specific duty to comply with standards for the good of all employees on a multi-employer worksite.”
Entergy Gulf States, Inc. v. Summers, 282 S.W.3d 433 (Tex. 2009). “See 29 U.S.C. § 654 . Finally, nothing in the record suggests the exclusive-remedy defense has spurred employers to care less about preventing jobsite accidents than those who face common-law liability.”
R. Acosta, Sec'y, LABR v. Hensel Phelps Constr, 909 F.3d 723 (5th Cir. 2018). “st no longer be followed? And fourth, if yes, free from the confines of Melerine and its forebears, is the ALJ's decision vacating the citation arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or not otherwise in accordance with the law? 6 A The Secretary argues that two…”
Kelley v. Howard S. Wright Constr. Co., 582 P.2d 500 (Wash. 1978). “29 U.S.C.A. § 654 . The statute creates a government program to enforce compliance, but does not create a private cause of action for persons injured as a result of noncompliance.”
Chao v. Occupational Saf. & Health Review Comm'n, 401 F.3d 355 (5th Cir. 2005). “The Secretary also charged Ho Respondents with willfully violating the OSH Act’s general duty clause, 29 U.S.C. § 654 (a)(1), by ordering Tate to tap into the unmarked pipeline.”
France v. S. Equip. Co., 689 S.E.2d 1 (W. Va. 2010). “" 29 U.S.C.A. § 654 (a) [1970] states that each "employer:" (1) shall furnish to each of his employees employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees; (2) shall…”
Whirlpool Corp. v. Marshall, 445 U.S. 1 (1980). “” 29 U. S. C. § 654 (a)(1). As the legislative history of this provision reflects 17 it was intended itself to deter the occurrence of occupational deaths and serious injuries by placing on employers a mandatory obligation independent of the specific health and safety standards…”
Faultless Div., Bliss & Laughlin Indus., Inc., a Corp. v. Sec'y of Labor, & Occupational Saf. & Health Review Comm'n, 674 F.2d 1177 (7th Cir. 1982). “1981) (general duty clause — 29 U.S.C. § 654 (a)(1) (1976)); Donovan v.”
Umansky v. ABC Ins., 2009 WI 82 (Wis. 2009). “¶ 119 First, although the duty imposed by OSHA regulations is a duty imposed not just on employers, but on employees as well, 29 U.S.C.A. § 654 (b), sanctions for noncompliance with OSHA regulations by either an employer or employee rest solely on the shoulders of the employer;…”
F & H Coatings, LLC v. Acosta, 900 F.3d 1214 (10th Cir. 2018). “The ALJ reviewed evidence presented by the Department of Labor ("DOL") during a two-day hearing, and held that the DOL had shown that F & H breached the General Duty Clause of the Occupational Safety and Health Act ("OSH Act"), 29 U.S.C. § 654 (a)(1). Upon review of the record,…”
C & M Builders, LLC v. Strub, 22 A.3d 867 (Md. 2011). “" The general duty clause of MOSHA, LE § 5-104(a), requires that each employer "shall provide each employee of the employer with employment and a place of employment that is: (1) safe and healthful; and (2) free from each recognized hazard that is causing or likely to cause…”
Hughes Gen. Contractors, Inc. v. Utah Labor Comm'n, 2014 UT 3 (Utah 2014). “¶ 8 The governing Utah statute, Utah Code section 34A-6-201, is not a mirror-image of its federal counterpart, 29 U.S.C. § 654 (a). Under federal law, moreover, the doctrine finds support in an express federal regulation, 29 C.”
— 29 U.S.C. § 654(a) — 1 case
Teitge v. Remy Const. Co., Inc., 526 N.E.2d 1008 (Ind. Ct. App. 1988).
— 29 U.S.C. § 654(a)(1) — 7 cases
Faultless Div., Bliss & Laughlin Indus., Inc., a Corp. v. Sec'y of Labor, & Occupational Saf. & Health Review Comm'n, 674 F.2d 1177 (7th Cir. 1982). “1981) (general duty clause — 29 U.S.C. § 654 (a)(1) (1976)); Donovan v.”
Richard v. Cornerstone Constructors, Inc., 921 S.W.2d 465 (Tex. App. 1996).
Peter J. Brennan, Sec'y of Labor v. Occupational Saf. & Health Review Comm'n & Hanovia Lamp Div., Canred Precision Indus., 502 F.2d 946 (3rd Cir. 1974).
Lake Butler Apparel Co. v. Sec'y of Labor, 519 F.2d 84 (5th Cir. 1975).
B & B Insulation, Inc. v. Occupational Saf. & Health Review Comm'n, 583 F.2d 1364 (5th Cir. 1978).
— 29 U.S.C. § 654(a)(2) — 2 cases
France v. S. Equip. Co., 689 S.E.2d 1 (W. Va. 2010). “" 29 U.S.C.A. § 654 (a) [1970] states that each "employer:" (1) shall furnish to each of his employees employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees; (2) shall…”
Nat'l Realty & Constr. Co., Inc. v. Occupational Saf. & Health Review Comm'n, Sec'y of Labor, Party, 489 F.2d 1257 (D.C. Cir. 1973).
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.