Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-88-02368/USCOURTS-ca10-88-02368-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Hackney, Inc.
Petitioner
Ann McLaughlin
Respondent
Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission
Respondent

Document Text:

HACKNEY, INC. , 

Pe,titioner, 

PUBLISH 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

FIL ED 

Uoited State$ Coore of Appeals 

Temb Cir::uir 

F£B 12 1990 

.ROBERT L. .HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 88-2368 

ANN MCLAUGHLIN, Secretary of 

Labor, and OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY 

AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION, 

Respondents. 

APPEAL FROM THE DECISION AND ORDER OF 

THE OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION 

(OSHRC Docket No. 86-1322) 

Robert E. Rader, Jr. of Rader, Addison & Story, P.C., Dallas, 

Texas, for Petitioner. 

John Shortall, Attorney, U.S. Department of Labor (Jerry G. Thorn, 

Acting Solicitor of Labor; Cynthia L. Attwood, Associate Solicitor 

for Occupational Safety and Health; and Barbara Werthmann, Acting 

Counsel for Appellate Litigation, U.S. Department of Labor, with 

him on the brief), Washington, D.C., for Respondents. 

Before McKAY and LOGAN, Circuit Judges, and BOHANON, District 

Judge.* 

McKAY, Circuit Judge. 

*Honorable Luther Bohanon, United States Senior District Judge 

for the Northern, Eastern, and Western Districts of Oklahoma, 

sitting by designation. 

Appellate Case: 88-2368 Document: 010110159042 Date Filed: 02/12/1990 Page: 1 
In this appeal we are asked to review an enforcement action 

brought by the Secretary of Labor arising from an inspection by 

the Occupational Safety and Health Administration of a workplace 

operated by Hackney, Inc. Following the inspection, the Secretary 

issued a citation charging that Hackney had violated the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 u.s.c. §§ 651 et~ by 

failing to comply with the audiometric testing requirements of 

OSHA's hearing conservation program standard. 29 C.F.R. 

S 1910.95(c)(l) and (g) (1988). After hearing, the Occupational 

Safety and Health Review Commission judge held that Hackney had 

violated the Act and that its violations were "nonserious. 111 That 

decision became a final order of the Commission when no commission 

member directed review. 

Hackney does not deny that it violated the Act. It seeks 

only to review the constitutionality of the search warrant and 

challenges the designation of the violations as nonserious rather 

than de minimus. 

1 The Act defines three categories of violations based on the 

gravity of harm that may be expected to result from a violation. 

See Brennan v. Butler Lime & Cement Co., 520 F.2d 1011, 1019 n.10 

(7th Cir. 1975). A violation is categorized as "serious" if 

"there is a substantial probability that death or serious harm 

could result" from the condition or practice that creates the 

violation. 29 u.s.c. § 666(k) (1982). A "de minimis" violation 

arises from a condition that has "no director immediate 

relationship to safety or health." 29 U.S.C. § 658(a) (1982). 

Violations that do not fit the descriptions of serious or de 

minimis are considered "nonserious." See 29 u.s.c. § 666(c) 

(1982). 

-2-

Appellate Case: 88-2368 Document: 010110159042 Date Filed: 02/12/1990 Page: 2 
I. The Constitutionality of the Search Warrant 

We previously reviewed the search warrant in this case when 

Hackney refused to permit inspection pursuant to the warrant. 

Donovan v. Hackney, Inc., 769 F.2d 650 (10th Cir. 1985), cert. 

denied, 475 U.S. 1081 (1986). In that case we specifically held 

"that 'administrative probable cause' is satisfied in the instant 

case, as Hackney was randomly selected for inspection pursuant to 

a neutral inspection plan." Id. at 653. Our prior opinion did 

not, in our judgment, leave open the question as to whether the 

plan was neutral on its face, but only whether it was nonneutral 

as applied. We explained in a footnote that Hackney might be 

entitled to discovery or further proceedings on the neutrality of 

the plan as applied after the inspection was completed. Id. at 

653 n.2. This_ is the basis of Hackney's current challenge to the 

search warrant. Hackney now seeks discovery of facts concerning 

the plan in order to prove that it is not neutral as applied •. 

Hackney complains on this appeal that the Commission judge 

rejected its claim that it was entitled to discovery concerning: 

(l) the basic factors taken into account in establishing the plan, 

and (2) whether the plan was administered cliscriminatorily against 

Hackney in relationship to others similarly situated under the 

plan. The Commission judge rejected Hackney's claim for discovery 

concerning the criteria and neutrality of the plan, noting that 

the plan was to be tested by the application of the "four corners 

doctrine" which was adopted by the Supreme Court in Franks v. 

Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 158 (1978). The "four corners doctrine" 

-3-

..... ,,,!:•, 

· .. .. .r ,, •' ~~."f'." • 

, .. 

,, 

Appellate Case: 88-2368 Document: 010110159042 Date Filed: 02/12/1990 Page: 3 
limits challenges to the validity of search warrants to review of· 

the materials submitted to the magistrate. The Commission judge 

properly noted that the only exception to the doctrine applies 

where there is a preliminary showing that false evidence was presented to the magistrate, either intentionally or recklessly. See 

Franks, 438 U.S. 154, 158 (1978). In its brief, Hackney cites no 

evidence that it presented to meet the Franks v. Delaware standard, nor are we able to discover any in the record. Thus, we 

affirm the trial court's holding that discovery concerning the 

plan should not be allowed in this case based on the Franks 

requirements. We also reemphasize our prior holding that settled 

the matter of the facial validity of the plan based on the materials submitted to the magistrate. 

Hackney's principal argument on this appeal is that the 

inspections pursuant to the plan were applied discriminatorily 

against Hackney as compared to others similarly classified under 

the plan. Hackney argues that discovery concerning this issue 

must be allowed based on our earlier opinion which left bpen the 

questions of post-enforcement rights and plan validity as applied. 

We now conclude, however, that Hackney has not made the required 

preliminary showing of at least some discrimination by OSHA based 

on the plan. The only evidence Hackney presented to the judge 

consisted of the warrant application, the supporting affidavit, 

the attached copy of OSHA's inspection plan, and the warrant. We 

considered all that evidence in our prior review of this case. We 

also dealt with the claim that there were too many repeated 

-4-

Appellate Case: 88-2368 Document: 010110159042 Date Filed: 02/12/1990 Page: 4 
, 

I; 

.r,,c_'\ inspections. We concluded that there was no basis for the claim 

that Hackney was singled out among those similarly situated for 

six excess inspections. We observed that there were, in fact, 

only three programmed inspections with appropriate follow-up 

inspections. See id~ at 653 n.l. Thus, Hackney has not made a 

preliminary showing of discrimination in the application of the 

plan. Without such a showing, we cannot authorize random discovery into the plan's application. We conclude, therefore, that the 

Commission judge properly denied discovery or an evidentiary hearing directed toward an attack on the search warrant. 

II. Non-serious Versus De Minimus Violations 

Hackney challenges the Commission's determination that the 

violations contained in the citation were nonserious rather than 

de minimus. The Commission determined that Hackney had failed to 

conduct regular audiometric testing of its employees as required 

by 29 C.F.R. § 1910.95(c) and (g) (1988). Hackney countered that 

it requires all of its employees to~wear ear protectors so that it 

is not necessary to do audiometric testing. However, the basic 

rule in these regulatory cases is that the regulated business must 

"follow the law even if it has a good faith belief that its own 

policy is wiser." RSR Corp. v. Brock, 764 F.2d 355, 363 (5th Cir. 

1985). Once the violation is shown, the burden is on the business 

to demonstrate that there is no substantial difference between the 

protection afforded by its actual plan and that which is required 

by OSHA in order to qualify for a de minimus citation. See 

Phoenix Roofing, Inc. v. Dole, 879 F.2d 1027 (5th Cir. 1989). In 

-5-

Appellate Case: 88-2368 Document: 010110159042 Date Filed: 02/12/1990 Page: 5 
( 

this case the Commission determined that audiometric testing 

would ascertain whether an employee had undergone a standard 

threshold shift in hearing which could, in turn, identify an . \ 

employee who is improperly wearing his protection equipment. 

Record, vol. _4, at 268. The Commission in fact determined that 

audiometric testing is an essential component of a successful 

hearing conservation program because it makes possible the assessment of hearing loss and the prevention of further hearing loss 

before it becomes handicapping. Substantial evidence in the 

reciord supports this finding. It is confirmed by the decision of 

the Fourth Circuit in Forging Industry Association v. Secretary of 

Labor, 773 F.2d 1436, 1447-48 (4th Cir. 1985). There the court 

held: 

The usefulness of audiometric testing in evaluating an 

employee's hearing is obvious. Testing establishes an 

individual baseline standard to which an employee's 

hearing later may be compared in order to ascertain 

whether a hearing impairment is imminent. If hearing 

loss is not identified, ameliorative steps might never 

be taken. Additionally, audiometric testing is important to determine whether hearing.protectors are operating properly. Although an audiometric test does not, in 

itself, alleviate hearing loss occasioned by noise exposure at an employee's workplace, the requirement relates 

to the purpose of protecting an employee's hearing. 

Although Hackney has a policy that requires its employees to 

wear ear protectors, we must reject Hackney's claim that its 

policy is superior to the requirements under the regulations. 

Hackney's policy lacks the means of determining whether, in fact, 

the employees are complying with its mandatory protector policy or 

whether the protector equipment is effective. Even with its 

employee training and its required hearing protectors, Hackney's 

-6-

• ; l 

Appellate Case: 88-2368 Document: 010110159042 Date Filed: 02/12/1990 Page: 6 
failure to conduct audiometric testing deprives the employer, as 

wel.l as OSHA, of information necessary to determine whether the 

employee's hearing has remained undamaged by workplace noise. 

Substantial evidence in the record also supports the Commission's 

conclusion that Hackney may not rely on the attenuation capabilities of its hearing protection equipment reportedly measured 

under laboratory conditions. The Commission concluded that the 

attenuation achieved by hearing protectors in the field is oniy 

one-third that achieved in the laboratory. 

III. Conclusion 

We conclude that there is no constitutional or other basis 

for attacking the validity of the search warrant pursuant to which 

these inspections were carried out. The Commission did not abuse 

its discretion in refusing to permit discovery or to hold a hearing with reference to Hackney's attempted challenge to the validity of the search warrant. We further hold that substantial evidence support~ the Commission's determination that the violations 

contained in the citation were nonserious violations of the OSHA 

health standard at 29 C.F.R. § 1910.95(c)(l) (1988). 

The decision of the Commission is AFFIRMED in all respects. 

-7-

Appellate Case: 88-2368 Document: 010110159042 Date Filed: 02/12/1990 Page: 7