676 F.3d 1109
D.C. Cir.2012Background
- William Kay, an 81-year-old truck driver, was killed when a large pipe fell from his load while delivering to the Kennecott Tailings Facility.
- Ames Construction, Inc. acted as an independent contractor responsible for receiving deliveries and unloading operations at the mine.
- MSHA cited Ames for violating 30 C.F.R. § 56.9201, alleging unloading of supplies in a hazardous manner.
- The Commission upheld the citation, ruling Ames could be liable without fault as a supervisor of the unloading process under § 110(a) and § 3(d).
- Ames challenged the Commission’s interpretation, arguing liability without fault should not extend to independent contractors not performing production operations.
- The DC Circuit affirmed, holding the Secretary’s construction consistent with the Act and supported by substantial evidence on supervisory control over unloading activities.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an independent contractor supervising unloading can be liable without fault under §110(a). | Ames argues it is not a production-operator for faultless liability unless it actually operates the mine. | Secretary/Commission contend Ames supervision of unloading makes it a production-operator for §110(a) liability without fault. | Yes; liability without fault can attach via supervision/control of unloading. |
| Whether Ames supervised the unloading of deliveries, justifying liability without fault. | Ames disputed the sufficiency of evidence tying it to supervision of unloading. | Record shows Ames escorted Kay, controlled the unloading area, and could stop unsafe work. | Substantial evidence supports Ames supervision of the unloading process. |
| Whether the Commission reasonably applied the independent contractor rule and production-operator concept. | Ames relies on independent contractor limits; argues the rule doesn’t extend to its role here. | Liability extends if an independent contractor also satisfies production-operator status through supervision. | Secretary's construction not precluded by language; aligns with act’s purposes. |
| Whether due process notice was violated by the Secretary's enforcement position. | Ames claims lack of fair notice of supervisory liability as a new enforcement approach. | Notice was adequate given the record and the well-established liability of production-operators for supervision. | No due process violation; notice adequate and enforcement position supported. |
Key Cases Cited
- Twentymile Coal Co. v. Secretary of Labor, 456 F.3d 151 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (adopts production-operator liability framework under §110(a))
- International Union, United Mine Workers of America v. FMSHRC, 840 F.2d 77 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (liability without fault limited to operators who operate, control, or supervise)
- Secretary of Labor v. National Cement Co., 573 F.3d 788 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (joint and several liability among operators; liability without fault)
- Secretary of Labor v. Cannelton Industries, 867 F.2d 1432 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (Chevron deference afforded to Secretary's interpretations of law)
- Gates & Fox Co. v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Comm'n, 790 F.2d 154 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (fair warning/notion of enforcement and notice in civil admin context)