Quantcast

PENNSYLVANIA RECORD

Saturday, April 27, 2024

Judge throws out meatpacking workers' COVID-19 safety lawsuit against OSHA

Federal Court
Scaliaeugene

Scalia

SCRANTON – A federal judge has granted the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit from workers at a meat processing plant, litigation which alleged the agency refused to enforce COVID-19 pandemic protocols in spite of receiving complaints about the workplace situation.

Jane Does I, II and III first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania on July 22 versus U.S. Secretary of Labor Eugene Scalia, the U.S. Department of Labor and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, all of Washington, D.C.

The plaintiff workers sought OSHA to take immediate action with respect to their employer, Maid-Rite Specialty Foods, for its alleged failure to institute precautionary measures for the coronavirus, which they say caused 50 percent of the employees to become infected.

The suit explained Maid-Rite manufactures prepackaged frozen meat products for schools, colleges and universities, nursing homes and U.S. military bases, but that an absence of rules in the factory for social distancing, hand-washing and personal protective equipment, led many workers to contract the coronavirus.

The plaintiffs argued they were forced to work elbow-to-elbow, among several other flagrant breaches of OSHA’s Meatpacking Guidance, including:

• The failure to place any form of barricade between workers;

• The failure to provide workers with masks that Maid-Rite can ensure comply with OSHA’s Guidance;

• The failure to provide workers with additional breaks to wash or sanitize their hands, meaning that workers at Maid-Rite may have to wait hours after coughing or sneezing to cleanse themselves; and

• Maid-Rite’s continued payment of weekend bonuses to workers who do not miss a day of work during the week, incentivizing workers to attend work even when they are sick.

All three employees said they feared company retaliation for reporting the issues contained in the complaint, because they added they have seen such retaliation, including firing, dispensed to other employees who have reported injuries and action against Maid-Rite.

The suit stated Maid-Rite workers have brought “at least” two formal complaints against the company to OSHA, with of them being an “imminent danger” complaint filed in May. However, the workers added OSHA told them that complaints related to the coronavirus are not an “imminent danger”.

The workers sought to compel OSHA to undertake an inspection of the premises and enforce protective protocols against the coronavirus, while also taking action against Maid-Rite for its alleged failure to protect its employees against the deadly virus.

On July 28, OSHA and the Department of Labor filed a motion to dismiss the case, saying as of an inspection conducted at the beginning of July, there was no danger at the Maid-Rite factory and the plaintiffs are trying to subvert the federal government’s inspection process.

Per federal law, the motion argued, in order for OSHA to be compelled to step in and take action of its own, the Department of Labor Secretary (Scalia) would need to have had a justifiable reason to act from a Compliance Safety and Health Officer, and then failed to do so.

A circumstance the defendants argued was not the case.

UPDATE

In a memorandum opinion handed down on March 30, U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania Judge Malachy E. Mannion ruled that the Court cannot grant the plaintiffs’ requested relief, due to OSHA previously deciding that no imminent danger exists at the meat processing plant – and thus, Scalia not being in the position to reject any call for an investigation of the working conditions.

“It is apparent that Section 13(d) [of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970] affords employees relief only in those instances where the Secretary has been presented with a finding of imminent danger by an OSHA inspector and has arbitrarily and capriciously rejected the recommendation to take legal action,” Mannion said.

“While plaintiffs balk at this reading of Section 13(d), arguing that the result would be an OSHA inspector, in finding no imminent danger, could cabin the power of the Secretary, this does not change the plain language of the Act.”

However, while Mannion added that the duration of time OSHA had taken to respond to the plaintiffs’ concerns about workplace safety gave the Court pause, the judge reasoned that the plaintiffs should seek relief from the Pennsylvania Legislature.

“The Court shares plaintiffs’ concern that there is no apparent remedy for employees in the event that an OSHA investigator declines to find imminent danger or if the investigation takes an excessive length of time before a finding of imminent danger is made,” Mannion stated.

“Plaintiffs’ valid concerns about continuing to be subject to the apparent imminent danger in the interim are well taken. Ultimately, however, plaintiffs’ remedy lies with the Legislature and not the courts if there is to be a mechanism by which employees can challenge an OSHA investigator’s finding of no imminent danger under Section 13(d).”

Groups representing the plaintiffs, Justice at Work Pennsylvania, Public Justice and Towards Justice, are considering an appeal of Mannion’s ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

The plaintiffs are represented by Lerae Kroon, Nina Menniti and Samuel Datlof of Friends of Farmworkers Inc. in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia, Adrienne Spiegel; David Samuel Muraskin and Karla Gilbride of Public Justice in Oakland, Calif. and Washington, D.C,; Brianne Michelle Power, Juno E. Turner and David H. Seligman of Towards Justice in Denver; and Anna P. Prakash and Matthew Morgan of Nichols Kaster, in Minneapolis.

The defendants are represented by Joseph J. Terz and G. Michael Thiel of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania in Harrisburg and Scranton, plus Michael P. Doyle, Richard T. Buchanan and Oscar Hampton III of the U.S. Department of Labor in Washington, D.C.

U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania case 3:20-cv-01260

From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com

More News