From: mansdorfz**At_Symbol_Here**BELLSOUTH.NET
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] OSHA issues emergency temporary standard to protect workers from coronavirus
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2021 11:07:38 -0400
Reply-To: ACS Division of Chemical Health and Safety <DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**Princeton.EDU>
Message-ID: 00fa01d7d18d$b5f78350$21e689f0$**At_Symbol_Here**
In-Reply-To <495E3FD9-889F-4292-B4FC-7EDC7EE05167**At_Symbol_Here**>

OSHA rarely uses the General Duty Clause (less then 2% of all citations) since they lose most of them in court. Not a slam dunk in my opinion.



S.Z. Mansdorf, PhD, CIH, CSP, QEP

Consultant in EHS and Sustainability

7184 Via Palomar

Boca Raton, FL 33433





From: ACS Division of Chemical Health and Safety <DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**Princeton.EDU> On Behalf Of Info
Sent: Thursday, November 4, 2021 10:17 AM
To: DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**Princeton.EDU
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] OSHA issues emergency temporary standard to protect workers from coronavirus


Insurance carriers and attorneys will take up any slack, no doubt.


It will be interesting to see if anyone ultimate pursues class actions based on the OHSA General Duty Clause, particularly from early in the pandemic in places like meat processing facilities.  See, for example,  I would expect that any defendant would try to argue that not enough was known at the time to take proper measures, but that the discovery process will ultimately show otherwise.


Here's an OSHA Standard Interpretation from 2003 titled "Elements necessary for a violation of the General Duty Clause" 


Employers can be cited for violation of the General Duty Clause if a recognized serious hazard exists in their workplace and the employer does not take reasonable steps to prevent or abate the hazard. The General Duty Clause is used only where there is no standard that applies to the particular hazard. The following elements are necessary to prove a violation of the General Duty Clause:

  1. The employer failed to keep the workplace free of a hazard to which employees of that employer were exposed;
  2. The hazard was recognized;
  3. The hazard was causing or was likely to cause death or serious physical harm; and
  4. There was a feasible and useful method to correct the hazard.


Slam dunk case in my mind.


Rob Toreki



NEW! US-Made, FDA/NIOSH surgical grade N95

NIOSH-approved N99 and N95 for $1 or less:


Safety Emporium - Laboratory and Safety Supplies
esales**At_Symbol_Here**  or toll-free: (866) 326-5412
Fax: (856) 553-6154, PO Box 1003, Blackwood, NJ 08012


On Nov 4, 2021, at 9:38 AM, CHAS membership <membership**At_Symbol_Here**DCHAS.ORG> wrote:


I wonder if OSHA has an enforcement strategy for this that reflects its resource levels?

- Ralph
News Release from OSHA

U.S. Department of Labor  |  November 4, 2021

US Department of Labor issues emergency temporary standard to protect workers from coronavirus
Increases protections for 84M private sector workers


--- For more information about the DCHAS-L e-mail list, contact the Divisional membership chair at membership**At_Symbol_Here** Follow us on Twitter **At_Symbol_Here**acsdchas

Previous post   |  Top of Page   |   Next post

The content of this page reflects the personal opinion(s) of the author(s) only, not the American Chemical Society, ILPI, Safety Emporium, or any other party. Use of any information on this page is at the reader's own risk. Unauthorized reproduction of these materials is prohibited. Send questions/comments about the archive to
The maintenance and hosting of the DCHAS-L archive is provided through the generous support of Safety Emporium.