Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): & Health Review Comm’n, 649 F.2d 1160, 1165 (5th Cir. Unit B July 9, 1981)). As for the knowledge element (the one at issue in this case), the Secretary can prove employer knowledge of the violation in one of two ways. First, where the Secretary shows that a supervisor had either actual or constructive knowledge of the violation, such knowledge is generally-imputed to the employer. See Georgia Elec. Co. v. Marshall, 595 F.2d 309, 321 (5th Cir.1979); New York State Elec. & Gas Corp., 88 F.3d at 105; see also Secretary of Labor v. Access Equip. Sys., Inc., 18 O.S.H. Cas. (BNA) 1718, at *9 (1999). An example of actual knowledge is where a supervisor directly sees a subordinate’s misconduct. See, e.g., Secretary of Labor v. Kansas Power & Light Co., 5 O.S.H. Cas. (BNA) 1202, at *3 (1977) (<HOLDING>). An example of constructive knowledge is where 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that because the supervisor directly saw the violative conduct without stating any objection his knowledge and approval of the work methods employed will be imputed to respondent (B) holding that the use of the word or in a statute indicates that any of the listed alternative methods will suffice (C) holding that the foundational prerequisites are unnecessary where the test result is admitted in evidence without objection when evidence of one of the issues in the case is admitted without objection the party against whom it is offered waives any objection to the evidence and it may be properly considered even if the evidence would have been excluded upon a proper objection (D) holding that to preserve an alleged error in the admission of evidence a timely objection must be made to the introduction of the evidence specific grounds for the objection should be stated and a ruling on the objection must be made by the trial court (E) holding that constructive knowledge was shown where the supervisor who had just walked into the work area was 10 feet away from the violative conduct
Output (English): holding that to preserve an alleged error in the admission of evidence a timely objection must be made to the introduction of the evidence specific grounds for the objection should be stated and a ruling on the objection must be made by the trial court