Solus Industrial Innovations, LLC operated a plastics manufacturing facility in California. In 2008, an explosion at the facility caused the deaths of two employees. Following the incident, the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) investigated and issued citations for safety violations. The State of California also pursued criminal charges against the company’s plant manager and maintenance supervisor, resulting in their convictions.
In addition to regulatory and criminal actions, the Orange County District Attorney filed a civil enforcement action under California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and Fair Advertising Law (FAL). The suit alleged that Solus engaged in unlawful business practices by failing to maintain a safe workplace, in violation of state occupational safety and health regulations.
Solus challenged the civil action, arguing that California’s occupational safety and health statutes and regulations provided the exclusive remedies for workplace safety violations. The company asserted that allowing additional enforcement under the UCL and FAL created conflicting penalties and enforcement schemes.
The trial court agreed with Solus and dismissed the UCL and FAL claims. It held that occupational safety violations could not serve as predicates for civil actions under California’s consumer protection statutes, reasoning that the Labor Code established the exclusive mechanism for workplace safety enforcement.
The California Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s dismissal. It concluded that workplace safety violations could form the basis for UCL and FAL claims because those statutes incorporate by reference any “unlawful” business practice. The appellate court reasoned that Cal/OSHA provisions could serve as predicates for such claims, even if they were primarily regulatory in nature.
Solus petitioned for review, and the California Supreme Court considered whether UCL and FAL actions could be based on workplace safety violations regulated by Cal/OSHA. The Court examined the statutory language of both the Labor Code and California’s consumer protection laws, as well as legislative intent regarding enforcement.
The Court determined that the UCL and FAL were broad in scope and designed to permit enforcement actions based on violations of other laws. It emphasized that while Cal/OSHA sets forth specific enforcement mechanisms, the Labor Code did not contain an exclusivity provision barring other statutory remedies. The Court also noted that applying the UCL and FAL in this context did not conflict with Cal/OSHA, but rather complemented its goals of promoting workplace safety.
The California Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court’s decision, holding that workplace safety violations under Cal/OSHA can serve as predicates for UCL and FAL actions. This allowed the Orange County District Attorney’s civil enforcement claims against Solus to proceed.
If you have concerns about compliance with workplace safety requirements or disputes involving regulatory enforcement, Whitcomb, Selinsky PC assists with matters related to OSHA safety. Contact us to learn how our team can support your needs.