Violation of OSHA Standards Now More Costly in Wisconsin

16 October 2014 Wisconsin Appellate Law Blog

Last week, the Wisconsin Supreme Court resolved its first case of the year. It affirmed, by an equally divided court, the published opinion of the court of appeals in Sohn v. LIRC, 350 Wis. 2d 469. The Wisconsin Court of Appeals had earlier held that an employer was required to make the “penalty” payment under Wis. Stat. § 102.57 to an employee who was injured at work. That statute requires employers to make a payment to injured employees, calculated as 15% of the employee’s worker’s compensation award, and capped at $15,000, when an employer violates safety regulations.

Sohn began when an employee severely injured her hand while cleaning manufacturing equipment, which her employer required her to do while the machines were still running. An investigation revealed that the employer’s practices did not comply with OSHA standards governing safe shut-down procedures for servicing machines. The practices also violated Wisconsin’s Safe Place Statute. An administrative law judge awarded the 15% penalty to the employee, and that decision was affirmed by the LIRC, the circuit court, and the court of appeals.

The two issues for the court of appeals were whether federal law preempted the penalty under § 102.57 and whether Wisconsin’s Safe Place Statute could support the penalty payment.

The court of appeals quickly disposed of the preemption argument. Federal law “expressly preserved worker’s compensation laws from preemption” with a savings clause.

The court also resolved the statutory-interpretation issue in the injured employee’s favor. The employer argued that violation of an OSHA standard is not sufficient to trigger liability under § 102.57, because (according to the employer) the statute requires that an employer violate “any statute, rule, or order of [Wisconsin's department of workforce development]” and violating OSHA standards (federal law) would not suffice. The court rejected that argument. It held that the employer’s violation of OSHA standards was evidence of a violation of Wisconsin’s Safe Place Statute and that violation in turn would satisfy § 102.57 ‘s statutory requirement (i.e., violation of “any statute”).

The supreme court was deadlocked. Three justices would have affirmed the court of appeals; three would have reversed. (Justice Prosser did not participate.)

The result is that the published decision of the court of appeals will stand, and violations of OSHA standards now will be more costly for Wisconsin employers.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services

Insights