Otis Elevator Company v. Secretary of Labor
762 F.3d 116
D.C. Cir.2014Background
- Otis Elevator mechanic injured hand unjamming a freight elevator gate; OSHA investigated and issued a citation under the lockout/tagout standard, including the information exchange provision.
- OSHA cited 29 C.F.R. § 1910.147(a)(1)(i)–(f)(2)(i); the information exchange provision requires on-site and outside employers to inform each other of lockout/tagout procedures.
- An administrative law judge vacated the citation, ruling the scope provision did not apply and no Boston Store employees faced danger.
- The Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission de novo reviewed and reinstated the citation, finding the lockout/tagout standard applicable and the information exchange violated, while reducing the penalty due to low accident likelihood.
- Otis challenged the Commission’s decision in the DC Circuit on two grounds: (1) applicability of the lockout/tagout standard; (2) applicability of the information exchange rule.
- The DC Circuit upheld the Commission, holding the lockout/tagout regime applied because stored energy was present and could be released unexpectedly, and the information exchange provision required pre-repair notification to on-site employers.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of lockout/tagout | Otis argued the standard did not apply to this repair. | Commission found the standard applied to unjamming activities. | Yes; the standard applies. |
| Information exchange requirement | Otis argued no duty to exchange information because no actual risk to Boston Store employees. | Commission held exchange required to promote safety; presumes hazard when outside personnel engage in covered work. | Yes; the information exchange provision applies and was violated. |
Key Cases Cited
- Martin v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Comm’n, 499 U.S. 144 (U.S. 1991) (substantial deference to agency findings, scope of review in OSH decisions)
- Reich v. General Motors Corp., 89 F.3d 313 (6th Cir. 1996) (unpredicted start up; relevance to ‘unexpected energization’)
- Buffalo Crushed Stone, Inc. v. Surface Transportation Board, 194 F.3d 125 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (agency deference to regulation purpose and text)
- Dayton Tire, 671 F.3d 1249 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (precedent on applying lockout/tagout to unanticipated releases)
- S.G. Loewendick & Sons, Inc., 70 F.3d 1294 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (deference to agency interpretation of its own regulations)