29 U.S.C. § 666

Civil and criminal penalties

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 29 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Willful or repeated violation

Any employer who willfully or repeatedly violates the requirements of section 654 of this title, any standard, rule, or order promulgated pursuant to section 655 of this title, or regulations prescribed pursuant to this chapter may be assessed a civil penalty of not more than $70,000 for each violation, but not less than $5,000 for each willful violation.

(b) Citation for serious violation

Any employer who has received a citation for a serious violation of the requirements of section 654 of this title, of any standard, rule, or order promulgated pursuant to section 655 of this title, or of any regulations prescribed pursuant to this chapter, shall be assessed a civil penalty of up to $7,000 for each such violation.

Any employer who has received a citation for a violation of the requirements of section 654 of this title, of any standard, rule, or order promulgated pursuant to section 655 of this title, or of regulations prescribed pursuant to this chapter, and such violation is specifically determined not to be of a serious nature, may be assessed a civil penalty of up to $7,000 for each such violation.

(d) Failure to correct violation

Any employer who fails to correct a violation for which a citation has been issued under section 658(a) of this title within the period permitted for its correction (which period shall not begin to run until the date of the final order of the Commission in the case of any review proceeding under section 659 of this title initiated by the employer in good faith and not solely for delay or avoidance of penalties), may be assessed a civil penalty of not more than $7,000 for each day during which such failure or violation continues.

(e) Willful violation causing death to employee

Any employer who willfully violates any standard, rule, or order promulgated pursuant to section 655 of this title, or of any regulations prescribed pursuant to this chapter, and that violation caused death to any employee, shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or by imprisonment for not more than six months, or by both; except that if the conviction is for a violation committed after a first conviction of such person, punishment shall be by a fine of not more than $20,000 or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or by both.

(f) Giving advance notice of inspection

Any person who gives advance notice of any inspection to be conducted under this chapter, without authority from the Secretary or his designees, shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not more than $1,000 or by imprisonment for not more than six months, or by both.

(g) False statements, representations or certification

Whoever knowingly makes any false statement, representation, or certification in any application, record, report, plan, or other document filed or required to be maintained pursuant to this chapter shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000, or by imprisonment for not more than six months, or by both.

(h) Omitted(i) Violation of posting requirements

Any employer who violates any of the posting requirements, as prescribed under the provisions of this chapter, shall be assessed a civil penalty of up to $7,000 for each violation.

(j) Authority of Commission to assess civil penalties

The Commission shall have authority to assess all civil penalties provided in this section, giving due consideration to the appropriateness of the penalty with respect to the size of the business of the employer being charged, the gravity of the violation, the good faith of the employer, and the history of previous violations.

(k) Determination of serious violation

For purposes of this section, a serious violation shall be deemed to exist in a place of employment if there is a substantial probability that death or serious physical harm could result from a condition which exists, or from one or more practices, means, methods, operations, or processes which have been adopted or are in use, in such place of employment unless the employer did not, and could not with the exercise of reasonable diligence, know of the presence of the violation.

(l) Procedure for payment of civil penalties

Civil penalties owed under this chapter shall be paid to the Secretary for deposit into the Treasury of the United States and shall accrue to the United States and may be recovered in a civil action in the name of the United States brought in the United States district court for the district where the violation is alleged to have occurred or where the employer has its principal office.

(Pub. L. 91–596, § 17, Dec. 29, 1970, 84 Stat. 1606, 1607; Pub. L. 101–508, title III, § 3101, Nov. 5, 1990, 104 Stat. 1388–29.)Editorial NotesCodification

Subsec. (h) of this section amended section 1114 of Title 18, Crimes and Criminal Procedure, and enacted note set out thereunder.

Amendments

1990—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 101–508, § 3101(1), substituted “$70,000 for each violation, but not less than $5,000 for each willful violation” for “$10,000 for each violation”.

Subsecs. (b) to (d), (i). Pub. L. 101–508, § 3101(2), substituted “$7,000” for “$1,000”.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 378 cases (27 in the last 5 years), 1972–2026 · leading case: George Hyman Constr. Co., Appellant, v. Occupational Saf. & Health Review Comm'n, Etc., Appellee, 582 F.2d 834 (4th Cir. 1978).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

George Hyman Constr. Co., Appellant, v. Occupational Saf. & Health Review Comm'n, Etc., Appellee, 582 F.2d 834 (4th Cir. 1978). · cites it 12× “Hyman was therefore charged with repeated violations under 29 U.S.C. § 666 (a). Jurisdiction. The administrative law judge (ALJ) found the violations to be repeated within the meaning of the Act.”

Robert B. Reich, Sec'y of Labor, United States Dep't of Labor v. D.M. Sabia Co. & Occupational Saf. & Health Review Comm'n, 90 F.3d 854 (3rd Cir. 1996). · cites it 9× “Sabia Company (“Sabia”) committed a “repeated” violation of a safety standard within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 666 (a). Applying the definition of “repeated” announced in Bethlehem Steel Corp.”

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). · cites it 8× “Breach of the general duty opens an employer to fines of up to $1,000 per violation, some fine in this range being mandatory if the violation is “serious,” 29 U.S.C. § 666 (b) and (c). Employer duties are enforced through citations and proposed penalties issued by the Secretary…”

Comm'r of Labor & Indus. v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 684 A.2d 845 (Md. 1996). · cites it 16× “Section 40(a) of the Maryland Act mirrors 29 U.S.C. § 666 (a) of the federal Act. [11] Neither act, however, defines "repeatedly.”

Atlas Roofing Co., Inc. v. Occupational Saf. & Health Review Comm'n, United States Dep't Oflabor, 518 F.2d 990 (5th Cir. 1975). · cites it 12× “so installed as to prevent accidental displacement”; 61 (ii) the findings of the administrative hearing officer were not supported by substantial evidence; or (iii) even if the regulation was violated, no “serious” offense qualifying for civil penalties under 29 U.S.C.A. § 666…”

Marshall v. Barlow's, Inc., 436 U.S. 307 (1978). · cites it 2× “The Act's penalty provisions for giving advance notice of a search, 29 U. S. C. § 666 (f), and the Secretary's own regulations, 29 CFR § 1903.”

Sec'y of Labor v. Trinity Indus., Inc., 504 F.3d 397 (3rd Cir. 2007). · cites it 8× “The ALJ, however, reclassified the violations as "other" or "non-serious," because, according to the ALJ, the violations could not be deemed "serious" pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 666 (k) as the Secretary had not met her burden of showing "any significant exposure to asbestos.”

Long Mfg. Co., N. C., Inc. v. Occupational Saf. & Health Review Comm'n & F. Ray Marshall, Sec'y of Labor, 554 F.2d 903 (8th Cir. 1977). · cites it 6× “The Secretary’s regional legal staff appears to have concluded that with respect to the press brakes petitioner was not guilty of a repeated violation but of having failed to correct or abate the initial violations which failure, if established, would in itself be a violation of…”

UNITED STATES of Am., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PITT-DES MOINES, INC., Defendant-Appellant, 168 F.3d 976 (7th Cir. 1999). · cites it 5× “2 In August 1996, a Federal Grand Jury handed up a two count indictment of PDM pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 666 (e). Section 666(e) makes any willful violation of OSHA safety standards resulting in the death of “any employee” punishable by fines or imprisonment.”

United States v. Atl. States Cast Iron Pipe Co., 612 F. Supp. 2d 453 (D.N.J. 2009). · cites it 6× “In the next Section we provide a summary of the criminal offenses available to be pleaded under the OSHA statute, 29 U.S.C. §§ 666 (e), (f) and (g), as well as the civil enforcement scheme under the OSHA statute.”

Simplex Time Recorder Co. v. Sec'y of Labor, William E. Brock, Sec'y of Labor v. Simplex Time Recorder Co., 766 F.2d 575 (D.C. Cir. 1985). · cites it 4× “On the four charges of serious violations, the AU ruled that the Secretary had proved a violation of the regulations, but had failed to demonstrate that the violations were “serious” within the OSHA definition, 29 U.S.C. § 666 (k). Because he found these violations to be…”

United States v. Wells, 519 U.S. 482 (1997). · cites it 2× “§ 7232 (penalizing false statement regarding registration as manufacturer or dealer in gasoline); 29 U. S. C. § 666 (g) (penalizing false statement in health and safety report required under this chapter); 30 U.”

Show all 378 citing cases →

— 29 U.S.C. § 666(a) — 2 cases

Barker Bros. Constr. v. Bureau of Saf. & Reg., 536 N.W.2d 845 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995).

J.A.M. Builders, Inc. v. Alexis Herman, 233 F.3d 1350 (11th Cir. 2000).

— 29 U.S.C. § 666(d) — 3 cases

Atlas Roofing Co., Inc. v. Occupational Saf. & Health Review Comm'n, United States Dep't Oflabor, 518 F.2d 990 (5th Cir. 1975). “so installed as to prevent accidental displacement”; 61 (ii) the findings of the administrative hearing officer were not supported by substantial evidence; or (iii) even if the regulation was violated, no “serious” offense qualifying for civil penalties under 29 U.S.C.A. § 666…”

Lake Butler Apparel Co. v. Sec'y of Labor, 519 F.2d 84 (5th Cir. 1975).

Lance Roofing Co. v. Hodgson, 343 F. Supp. 685 (N.D. Ga. 1972).

— 29 U.S.C. § 666(j) — 1 case

Kent Nowlin Constr. Co. v. Occupational Saf. & Health Review Comm'n, 648 F.2d 1278 (10th Cir. 1981).

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.