Solus Indus. Innovations, LLC v. Superior Court of Orange Cnty.
228 Cal. Rptr. 3d 406
Cal.2018Background
- Solus Industrial installed a residential electric water heater at its Orange County plant; in 2009 the heater exploded, killing two employees. Cal/OSHA investigated and cited Solus for multiple safety-regulation violations and a willful violation.
- The Orange County District Attorney filed criminal charges against plant managers and a civil action against Solus under California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL, Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200) and False Advertising Law (FAL, § 17500), seeking civil penalties tied to alleged Cal/OSHA violations and allegedly false statements about safety.
- Solus demurred, arguing the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act, 29 U.S.C. § 651 et seq.) preempted the DA’s UCL and FAL claims; the trial court overruled the demurrer. The Court of Appeal held the claims were preempted; the California Supreme Court granted review.
- California has an approved state OSHA plan (Cal/OSHA) submitted to and approved by the federal Secretary of Labor in 1973; the DA’s claims are based on Cal/OSHA standards that are part of that approved plan.
- The key legal question was whether the federal OSH Act preempts state-law UCL/FAL enforcement claims based on workplace-safety violations when a state plan has been federally approved.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether UCL/FAL claims premised on Cal/OSHA violations are impliedly preempted by the federal OSH Act | DA: State UCL/FAL actions are valid enforcement tools; California has an approved plan and state law governs workplace safety enforcement | Solus: OSH Act occupies the field; only federal or plan-approved state enforcement may regulate workplace safety, so UCL/FAL are preempted | No implied preemption: federal scheme contemplates a narrow preempted field; approved state plan and savings clause preserve state remedies including UCL/FAL |
| Whether UCL/FAL claims create an obstacle to federal OSH Act objectives | DA: Supplemental state enforcement does not frustrate OSH Act goals (national floor) and supports state assumption of enforcement | Solus: Additional state remedies (higher penalties, different mechanisms) undermine uniformity and Congress’s objectives | No obstacle preemption: approved state plan meets congressional objectives and supplemental remedies do not obstruct them |
| Whether express preemption exists in OSH Act to bar state enforcement mechanisms like UCL/FAL until approved by Secretary | DA: OSH Act does not expressly preempt such state-law remedies; statute and regs allow states with approved plans to implement and modify enforcement | Solus: Statutory structure (29 U.S.C. § 667) implies Congress intended exclusive federal/plan-approved enforcement | No express preemption: statute and structure do not unmistakably show Congress intended to preclude UCL/FAL enforcement when state plan is approved |
| Whether California may implement enforcement changes (e.g., UCL/FAL penalties) without prior federal approval | DA: State plan modifications may take effect immediately and subsequently be reviewed; federal practice allows prompt state implementation | Solus: Any enforcement outside the approved plan must be pre-approved or is preempted | Court: States with approved plans may supplement/enforce standards, and federal practice and regs permit implementation pending review; such measures are not automatically preempted |
Key Cases Cited
- Gade v. National Solid Wastes Management Ass'n, 505 U.S. 88 (1992) (examines OSH Act preemption where no approved state plan; holds nonapproved state occupational safety regulation conflicting with federal standards is preempted)
- United Air Lines, Inc. v. Occupational Safety & Health Appeals Bd., 32 Cal.3d 762 (1982) (discusses federal floor for worker safety and California’s ability to assume plan responsibility)
- Quesada v. Herb Thyme Farms, Inc., 62 Cal.4th 298 (2015) (articulates presumption against preemption and methods of discerning congressional intent)
- Olszewski v. Scripps Health, 30 Cal.4th 798 (2003) (applies presumption against preemption where state and federal schemes are complementary)
- In re Tobacco Cases II, 41 Cal.4th 1257 (2007) (illustrates when UCL claims may be preempted as applied but distinguishes that result from general UCL enforcement premised on state standards)