Because federal law “contemplates a cooperative system of workplace safety regulation, not an exclusively federal one,” the Supreme Court today holds in Solus Industrial Innovations, LLC v. Superior Court that the federal OSHA legislation does not preempt a California district attorney’s civil penalties action under the state’s unfair competition and fair advertising laws for workplace safety violations. The court’s unanimous opinion by Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye says that the federal law’s purpose “was to supply a nationwide floor of protection for workers” and concludes that a district attorney’s action can proceed “when, as in California, there is a state plan approved by the federal Secretary of Labor.”
The court is not on the same page as the Ninth Circuit. In holding enforcement of safety regulations through the state’s unfair competition and fair advertising laws to be a valid modification of California’s state plan, the Supreme Court relies on a federal Labor Department decision. But a 1997 Ninth Circuit decision found OSHA preemption of a related California law and the Supreme Court wags its finger at the federal appeals court, saying that court “should have given deference to the federal Department of Labor’s decision.”
The court reverses the Fourth District, Division Three, Court of Appeal. This was the third time the Supreme Court granted review in the case, earlier twice transferring the case back to the Court of Appeal for reconsideration. (Here and here.)
Concerning a water heater explosion that killed two Solus employees nine years ago, this litigation has been going on for a long time. And today’s opinion is still not the end of the line by any means. It just clears the way for the district attorney to pursue its action for civil penalties. Of course, that’s only if the U.S. Supreme Court doesn’t want to hear the case, which it might since the case raises a federal law issue on which the state Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit do not see eye-to-eye.
