Whirlpool Corp. v. Marshall
445 U.S. 1, 1980 U.S. LEXIS 81, 63 L. Ed. 2d 154 (1980)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSHA) protects employees who refuse to perform assigned tasks because of a reasonable apprehension of death or serious injury and a reasonable belief that no less drastic alternative is available, as provided by a valid regulation promulgated by the Secretary of Labor.
Facts:
- Whirlpool Corp. operated a manufacturing plant in Marion, Ohio, featuring overhead conveyors and a horizontal wire-mesh guard screen installed approximately 20 feet above the plant floor to protect employees from falling objects.
- Maintenance employees, including Virgil Deemer and Thomas Cornwell, were required to perform duties that sometimes necessitated stepping onto the steel mesh screen itself, in addition to the angle-iron frames.
- In 1973, Whirlpool began installing heavier wire in the screen after several employees had fallen partly through the old screen, and on one occasion, an employee had fallen completely through to the plant floor but survived.
- Whirlpool’s safety instructions at the time admonished employees to step only on the angle-iron frames, not the mesh screen.
- On June 28, 1974, a maintenance employee fell to his death through an old section of the guard screen where the newer, stronger mesh had not yet been installed.
- Following this fatality, Whirlpool issued an order strictly forbidding maintenance employees from stepping on either the screens or the angle-iron supporting structure, and developed a more cumbersome alternative method for removing objects.
- On July 7, 1974, Deemer and Cornwell met with the plant maintenance superintendent to voice concerns about the screen's safety, and on July 9, they met with the plant safety director, who provided them with contact information for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).
- On July 10, 1974, Deemer and Cornwell reported for the night shift and were directed by their foreman to perform usual maintenance duties on a section of the old screen; they refused, claiming the screen was unsafe.
Procedural Posture:
- The Secretary of Labor filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, alleging that Whirlpool Corporation's actions against employees Deemer and Cornwell constituted discrimination in violation of Section 11(c)(1) of the Act.
- Following a bench trial, the District Court found that the employees’ refusal was justified under the Secretary’s regulation, but held that the regulation was inconsistent with the Act and therefore invalid, denying relief.
- The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed the District Court’s judgment, finding the regulation to be valid and remanding the case for further proceedings.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari because the decision of the Court of Appeals conflicted with those of two other Courts of Appeals on the important question in issue.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Secretary of Labor’s regulation (29 CFR § 1977.12(b)(2)), which protects employees from discrimination for refusing to perform assigned tasks due to a reasonable apprehension of death or serious injury and a reasonable belief that no less drastic alternative is available, validly interpret Section 11(c)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Stewart
Yes, the Secretary of Labor’s regulation, which protects employees from discrimination for refusing to perform assigned tasks due to a reasonable apprehension of death or serious injury and a reasonable belief that no less drastic alternative is available, is a permissible interpretation of the Occupational Safety and Health Act. The Court reasoned that the regulation clearly conforms to the fundamental objective of the Act—to prevent occupational deaths and serious injuries—and rationally complements its remedial scheme and the 'general duty' clause. It addresses specific situations where employees face an imminent risk of death or serious injury and lack sufficient time or opportunity to seek effective redress from their employer or apprise OSHA of the danger, thereby ensuring that the Act's purpose is not frustrated in emergencies. The Court distinguished the rejected 'strike with pay' provision in legislative history by noting Congress's primary concern was with the compensation requirement, not the right to refuse unsafe work itself. Similarly, the Court found the regulation does not conflict with the rejection of administrative shutdown provisions because those provisions concerned unilateral governmental power without judicial safeguards, whereas the regulation only permits private employees to avoid dangers to their own safety and carries the risk of discipline if their refusal is later found unreasonable or in bad faith.
Analysis:
This case is a foundational ruling that established the validity of an employee's 'right to refuse unsafe work' under specific, exigent circumstances within the framework of OSHA. It clarified that while the Act primarily relies on enforcement mechanisms and reporting, these are not the exclusive avenues when employees face immediate, severe danger. The decision highlights the Act's prophylactic purpose, prioritizing the prevention of harm over procedural delays. It creates a critical exception for employee self-help, influencing how courts evaluate retaliation claims where employees refuse to work in the face of imminent peril, and shaping employer responsibilities in emergency safety situations.
