Akm LLC v. Secretary of Labor, Dept. of Labor
400 U.S. App. D.C. 91
| D.C. Cir. | 2012Background
- OSHA cited Volks Constructors for failures to make and review injury records and for not maintaining its injury log from 2002 to 2006.
- Citations issued November 8, 2006, for violations arising from injuries occurring up to April 2006, beyond six months after the injuries.
- OSHA argued violations were continuing under a five-year retention regime, delaying timeliness until the end of the retention period.
- Volks moved to dismiss as untimely under 29 U.S.C. § 658(c); the Commission agreed with OSHA’s continuing-violation theory.
- DC Circuit held that the statute’s six-month limit controls and the record-keeping regulations do not create continuing violations for untimely citations.
- Court concluded that the violations occurred by the seven-day grace period (for 1904.29) and by year-end (for 1904.32), not during the five-year retention period.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Chevron deference applies to the statute of limitations issue | Volks argues no deference to agency | Secretary invokes Chevron deference for reasonable interpretation | Chevron deference not controlling; interpretation deemed unreasonable |
| Whether OSHA's continuing-violation theory is reasonable | Volks contends no continuing violation under § 658(c) | Secretary treats record-keeping as ongoing conduct within retention period | Continuing-violation theory rejected; not supported by text |
| Whether the record-keeping regulations impose continuing obligations | Volks claims discrete obligations at set times, not ongoing duties | Secretary argues ongoing obligation via retention rules | Regulations impose discrete, time-bound duties; no ongoing updating requirement beyond specified periods |
| Whether the timing of violations triggered a six-month limitations period | Violation occurs when the log is not created or reviewed within grace period | Retention period extends the trigger for timeliness | Violations occurred by the end of grace/annual periods; citations untimely under § 658(c) |
Key Cases Cited
- National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (U.S. Supreme Court 2002) (definition of occurrence as a past discrete event)
- Chalabi v. Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, 543 F.3d 728 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (continuing violations doctrine limits)
- Fitzgerald v. Seamans, 553 F.2d 230 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (continuing violations principle not broad)
- Mohasco Corp. v. Silver, 447 U.S. 807 (U.S. Supreme Court 1980) (deadlines to encourage prompt pursuit of charges)
- Int'l Union, UAW v. NLRB, 363 F.2d 702 (D.C. Cir. 1966) (quotations on continuing actions/inactions)
- Postow v. OBA Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n, 627 F.2d 1370 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (continuing violation theory in consumer protection context)
- 3M Co. v. Browner, 17 F.3d 1453 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (deference to agency interpretations of general statutes of limitations probed)
- Intermountain Ins. Serv. of Vail v. Commissioner, 650 F.3d 691 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (whether agency interpretation of statutes of limitations warrants Chevron deference)
- Bay Area Laundry & Dry Cleaning Pension Trust Fund v. Ferbar Corp., 522 U.S. 192 (U.S. Supreme Court 1997) (statutory interpretation and limitations discussion)
- FedEx Home Delivery v. NLRB, 552 U.S. 389 (U.S. Supreme Court 2008) (agency deference in jurisdictional questions)