Sea World of Florida, LLC v. Thomas Perez
409 U.S. App. D.C. 228
D.C. Cir.2014Background
- SeaWorld trainer Dawn Brancheau was killed by Tilikum during a live performance in Orlando, triggering OSHA citations.
- OSHA issued three citations; SeaWorld challenged only the second, alleging a willful violation of the general duty clause.
- ALJ found a recognized hazard existed in drywork and waterwork with killer whales and that abatement was feasible, including barriers or distance.
- Secretary proposed abatement measures and SeaWorld had already implemented some by restricting waterwork and increasing distance.
- The Commission affirmed the ALJ; SeaWorld petitioned for review challenging recognized hazard and feasibility findings.
- The court upheld the Commission, rejecting SeaWorld’s arguments and adopting Secretary’s interpretation of the general duty clause.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a recognized hazard exists | SeaWorld contends there was no recognized hazard based on safety programs. | Secretary and Commission found a recognized hazard due to dangerous, unpredictable killer whales. | Yes; substantial evidence supports recognizing the hazard from close contact with killer whales. |
| Whether abatement feasible | SeaWorld argues abatement by barriers/distance is not feasible or too burdensome. | Abatement is feasible; SeaWorld had already implemented similar measures for Tilikum and could extend them. | Yes; abatement feasible and already partially implemented; extending it would not alter SeaWorld's essential operations. |
| Whether the General Duty Clause applies to SeaWorld's activities | SeaWorld relies on Pelron and argues the clause cannot regulate normal industry activities like entertainment shows. | Secretary may regulate preventable hazards in the workplace, including certain entertainment activities. | No; the Department may regulate preventable hazards in the work environment, and SeaWorld’s activities fall within scope. |
| Constitutional vagueness / fair notice | SeaWorld contends the clause lacks fair notice of abatement requirements. | Hazards were preventable; notice was provided by evidence of prior incidents and industry recognition. | No; the hazard was preventable and there was notice of abatement, despite some Cal/OSHA references. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nat'l Realty & Constr. Co. v. OSHRC, 489 F.2d 1257 (D.C. Cir. 1973) (general duty clause not strict liability; must be preventable and achievable)
- Fabi Constr. Co. v. Sec’y of Labor, 508 F.3d 1077 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (four elements to prove violation; feasibility and reasonableness standard)
- Baroid Div. of NL Indus., Inc. v. OSHRC, 660 F.2d 439 (10th Cir. 1981) (reasonable standard for recognizing hazards; substantial evidence standard)
- Continental Oil Co. v. OSHRC, 630 F.2d 446 (6th Cir. 1980) (hazards must be preventable and identifiable by employer)
- Donovan v. Royal Logging Co., 645 F.2d 822 (9th Cir. 1981) (reasonableness standard for abatement in hazardous industries)
- Am. Textile Mfrs. Inst., Inc. v. Donovan, 452 U.S. 490 (U.S. 1981) (precedent on feasibility and regulatory limits)