Hughes v. Utah Labor Commission (Utah 2014)

Facts: Hughes General Contractors ("Hughes") were a general contractor. They oversaw a construction project at a high school. There were around 100 subcontractors. B.A. Robinson was one of the subcontractors. They performed masonry work. B.A. Robinson erected dangerous scaffolding. A Utah OSHA compliance officer gave a citation to B.A. Robinson. OSHA gave a citation also to Hughes under the "multi-employer worksite doctrine". Hughes had general supervisory authority over the construction site. 

Procedural History: Hughes challenged the citation. The citation was upheld by the administrative law judge. Hughes appealed to the Utah Labor Commission's Appeals Board. The Appeals Board also upheld the citation, and it upheld the "multi-employer worksite doctrine". Hughes then appealed to the Utah Court of Appeals, which 'certified' the case to the Utah Supreme Court for original review, as permitted to do so by Utah statute.

Result: Citation reversed. Multi-employer worksite doctrine rejected under Utah law. (a) The governing Utah OSHA provision described an employer and employee relationship; the duty to provide a safe workplace an obligation owed by an employer to an employee, not a third person. The statute gives a circular definition of an employer as one who employs an employee, and an employee as one who is employed by an employer. Where there is a circular definition of a word, a statute is understood to incorporate them as legal terms of art. An employer  is a legal term of art meaning having control over an employee, not control over a worksite. A general contractor is not an employer vis-a-vis the employees of its subcontractor. (b) Federal OSHA (the statute) is differently structured, such that it is reasonable to conclude that a duty to provide a safe workplace runs to non-employees, but that is not the case with Utah OSHA. The federal courts defer to administrative agency interpretations of ambiguity in federal statutes under Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837 (1984), in order to provide coherence  and uniformity where there could otherwise be circuit split, but that is not necessary in Utah, as there is only one appellate court. (c) The court recognizes that the cause of safety might be advanced by adopting the "multi-employer worksite doctrine", but here the language of the statute provides the resolution to the question, so the court will not attempt to infer legislative intent further by weighing the competing policy arguments made by the parties. 

The full opinion can be read here.