Sanderson Farms, Incorporated v. OSHC
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 1124
| 5th Cir. | 2016Background
- Sanderson Farms operates a chicken-processing plant; OSHA inspected after which two machines were cited: a chicken-cutting table (unguarded rotating arbor) and a deboning station (projecting key on a shaft end).
- The arbor is a cylindrical sleeve on the motor shaft, connected by two screws, rotating at 1,750 RPM, located under 7 feet from the floor; workers’ hands come within 6–8 inches during operation.
- The deboning-station shaft end had a key projecting ~1/16–1/8 inch, rotating slowly at 40 RPM, located ~2.5 feet above the worker platform.
- An ALJ found both conditions violated 29 C.F.R. § 1910.219, labeling both serious violations, assessed a $1,500 fine, and the decision became final when OSHRC declined review.
- On review, the Fifth Circuit considered (1) whether employers may rebut the regulatory presumption of hazard at prima facie stage, (2) whether substantial evidence supported the arbor citation, and (3) whether substantial evidence supported the projecting-key citation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether employers can rebut the presumption of hazard at the prima facie stage | Bunge requires opportunity to rebut presumed hazard when proving prima facie violation | Secretary: presumption of hazard stands; lack of hazard is an affirmative de minimis defense | Court: hazard is presumed; Bunge footnote describes de minimis defense, not a prima facie rebuttal opportunity (plaintiff loses) |
| Applicability of §1910.219(c)(2)(i) to the cutting-table arbor | Arbor is not "shafting" governed by the horizontal-shaft rule | Secretary: arbor is a rotating component integral to transmission shafting and falls within the rule | Court: arbor is part of power-transmission apparatus; §1910.219(c)(2)(i) applies (citation upheld) |
| Knowledge/constructive knowledge of the unguarded arbor | No actual knowledge or negligence; lack of prior injuries undermines seriousness | Secretary: supervisors knew guards were absent; management testimony imputes knowledge to employer | Court: substantial evidence employer knew or should have known (constructive knowledge established) |
| Applicability of §1910.219(c)(4)(i) to the projecting key | Key violates shaft-end smoothness rule | Secretary/ALJ applied shaft-end standard | Court: wrong standard applied—specific key provision (§1910.219(h)(1)) governs keys; citation under (c)(4)(i) not sustained (citation vacated) |
Key Cases Cited
- Chao v. OSHRC, 480 F.3d 320 (5th Cir. 2007) (standard for appellate review of OSHRC factual findings)
- Valmont Indus. v. NLRB, 244 F.3d 454 (5th Cir. 2001) (substantial-evidence review requires upholding reasonable factfinder conclusions)
- Bunge Corp. v. Secretary of Labor, 638 F.2d 831 (5th Cir. 1981) (discussion of presumed hazard and employer rebuttal/de minimis defense)
- W.G. Yates & Sons Constr. Co. v. OSHRC, 459 F.3d 604 (5th Cir. 2006) (imputing supervisor knowledge to employer)
- Trinity Indus. v. OSHRC, 206 F.3d 539 (5th Cir. 2000) (standard for employer knowledge via reasonable diligence)
- East Tex. Motor Freight, Inc. v. OSHRC, 671 F.2d 845 (5th Cir. 1982) (maintenance program failures as basis for constructive knowledge)
- Ryder Truck Lines, Inc. v. Brennan, 497 F.2d 230 (5th Cir. 1974) (absence of past injury does not negate hazard)
- Bailey v. United States, 516 U.S. 137 (1995) (interpretive canon: give effect to each term in regulation/statute)