<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><head xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
		<title>Document</title>
		<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=utf-8"/>
		<style type="text/css">
 p.hiddenParagraph { visibility:hidden } 
 p { widows:0; orphans:0; widows:0; orphans:0; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0; font-family:Times New Roman; color:WindowText; font-size:10pt; } 
 p { font-family:Times New Roman; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:12pt; }  p.style_Normal { widows:0; orphans:0; } 
.style_Normal span { } 
 span.style_DefaultParagraphFont { } 
 table.style_TableNormal { } 
 table.style_TableGrid { } 
 p.style_BalloonText { font-size:8pt; font-family:Tahoma; } 
.style_BalloonText span { font-family:Tahoma; } 
 p.style_FootnoteText { } 
.style_FootnoteText span { } 
 span.style_FootnoteReference { position:relative;font-size:0.58em; bottom: 1ex;} 
.style_FootnoteReference span { position:relative;font-size:0.58em; bottom: 1ex;} 
 p.style_Footer { } 
 span.style_PageNumber { } 
 p.style_Header { } 
 span.style_FootnoteTextChar { } 
 span.style_Emphasis { font-style:italic; } 
.style_Emphasis span { font-style:italic; } 
 span.style_FooterChar { } 
.style_FooterChar span { } 
 span.style_LineNumber { } 
 span.style_CommentReference { font-size:8pt; } 
.style_CommentReference span { } 
 p.style_CommentText { } 
.style_CommentText span { } 
 span.style_CommentTextChar { } 
 p.style_CommentSubject { font-weight:bold; } 
.style_CommentSubject span { font-weight:bold; } 
 span.style_CommentSubjectChar { font-weight:bold; } 
.style_CommentSubjectChar span { font-weight:bold; } 
 p.style_Revision { } 
.style_Revision span { } 
 span.style_Hyperlink { color:#0000FF; text-decoration:underline ;} 
.style_Hyperlink span { color:#0000FF; text-decoration:underline ;} 
 p.style_ListParagraph { margin-left:48px; } 
 span.X3AS7TOCHyperlink { color:#000000; text-decoration:none; } 
 p.X3AS7TABSTYLE { } 
 span.BulletSymbol { font-family:'Symbol'; } 
 body { margin-left:96px;margin-top:96px;margin-bottom:96px;margin-right:96px;} 
div.basic { width:16.51cm;height:22.86cm;} 
 p.hiddenParagraph { font-size:2pt; visibility:hidden; } 
</style>
		<script type="text/javascript">
							var useragent = navigator.userAgent;
							var navigatorname;
							if (useragent.indexOf('MSIE')!= -1)
							{
							navigatorname="MSIE";
							}
							else if (useragent.indexOf('Gecko')!= -1)
							{
							if (useragent.indexOf('Chrome')!= -1)
							navigatorname="Google Chrome";
							else
							navigatorname="Mozilla";
							}
							else if (useragent.indexOf('Mozilla')!= -1)
							{
							navigatorname="old Netscape or Mozilla";
							}
							else if (useragent.indexOf('Opera')!= -1)
							{
							navigatorname="Opera";
							}
							
							function symbol(code1,code2)
							{
							if (navigatorname == 'MSIE')
								document.write(code1);
							else
								document.write(code2);
							}
							</script>
	</head>
	<body xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><div class="basic"><div>
				<p style="text-align:center; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; ">United States of America</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="text-align:center; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; ">OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "> </p>
			</div>
			<table style="border-collapse:collapse; width:auto; align:left; margin-left:-.191cm; margin-bottom:0cm">
				<tr style="margin:0;border:0;padding:0;visibility:hidden;">
					<th style="width:319.2px;"/>
				</tr>
				<tr>
					<td style="vertical-align:top;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.19cm;padding-right:0.19cm;background-color:; border-right:dashed .018cm #000000; border-top:solid .018cm #000000; width:8.446cm;">
						<div>
							<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "> </p>
						</div>
						<div>
							<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">SECRETARY OF LABOR</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">,<span>
									</span></span></p>
						</div>
					</td>
				</tr>
				<tr style="height:.6cm; ">
					<td style="vertical-align:top;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.19cm;padding-right:0.19cm;background-color:; border-right:dashed .018cm #000000; width:8.446cm;">
						<div>
							<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">
								</span></p>
						</div>
						<div>
							<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">
								</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Complainan</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">t,</span></p>
						</div>
					</td>
				</tr>
				<tr>
					<td style="vertical-align:top;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.19cm;padding-right:0.19cm;background-color:; border-right:dashed .018cm #000000; width:8.446cm;">
						<div>
							<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">
								</span></p>
						</div>
						<div>
							<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "> v. </span></p>
						</div>
						<div>
							<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "> </p>
						</div>
					</td>
				</tr>
				<tr>
					<td style="vertical-align:top;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.19cm;padding-right:0.19cm;background-color:; border-right:dashed .018cm #000000; width:8.446cm;">
						<div>
							<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">YANTIS COMPANY</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">,</span></p>
						</div>
					</td>
				</tr>
				<tr>
					<td style="vertical-align:top;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.19cm;padding-right:0.19cm;background-color:; border-right:dashed .018cm #000000; border-bottom:solid .018cm #000000; width:8.446cm;">
						<div>
							<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">
								</span></p>
						</div>
						<div>
							<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">
								</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Respondent.</span></p>
						</div>
					</td>
				</tr>
			</table>
			<div>
				<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "><span><span></span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; ">
				</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="text-align:center; widows:2; orphans:2; "> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">
					</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">OSHRC Docket No.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">15-1697</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">Appearances:</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="margin-left:48px; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">Carlton C. Jackson</span><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">, Esq., U.S. Department of Labor, Office of the Solicitor,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">Dallas</span><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">Texas</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">For Complainant</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="margin-left:48px; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">Calley D. Callahan, Esq. and Donald W. Holcomb</span><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">, Esq.</span><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">Knolle, Holcomb, Callahan & Taylor, Cedar Park, Texas</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">F</span><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">or Respondent</span><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">Be</span><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">fore: Administrativ</span><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">e Law</span><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Judge</span><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">John H. Schumacher</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:center; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline ;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline ;">DECISION AND ORDER</span></p>
			</div>
			<p style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-1.27cm; line-height:2; margin-left:72px; text-indent:-1.27cm; widows:2; orphans:2; line-height:2; ">
				<span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-weight:bold; padding-right:20px;">I.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; ">Procedural History</span></p>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>This proceeding is before the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (“the Commission”)<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">pursuant to</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">s</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">ection 10(c) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. §</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">659(c) (“the Act”).</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">
					</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">On<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">May 5, 2015</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">CSHOs John Lawhorn and Jermaine Thomas observed an individual exiting an unprotected trench located on Maurer Ranch Road, San Antonio, Texas</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">.</span><span class="style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><a name="ftnref2" href="#ftn2">1</a></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">(Tr. 109)</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Based on their observations, CSHOs Lawhorn and Thomas initiated an inspection of Respondent’s worksite pursuant to Complainant’s National Emphasis Program on Trenching and Excavations. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">110–11</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">).<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">A</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">s a result</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>of the inspection</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">,</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">on<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">September 9, 2015</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">,</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">OSHA<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">issued a<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Citation and Notification of Pena</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">lty</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">(“Citation”)<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">to Respond</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">ent</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">,</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>alleging</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">one</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">repeat</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">violation of the Act and proposing a penalty of $</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">35</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">,000</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">.00</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "> The<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Citation</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>alleges Respondent<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">failed to provide adequate protection for employees entering into a trench</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">In response to the allegation, Respondent claims that<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">the violation was the result of unprev</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">entable employee misconduct or, alternatively, that Complainant failed to prove that the acts of its employees were foreseeable.<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Respondent submitted its Notice of Contest on<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">September 30, 2015,</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>bring</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">ing</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>this case before the Commission.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">
					</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">A trial was held on<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">October 25, 2016</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, after which both parties submitted post-trial briefs.<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<p style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-1.27cm; line-height:2; margin-left:72px; text-indent:-1.27cm; widows:2; orphans:2; line-height:2; ">
				<span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-weight:bold; padding-right:20px;">II.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; ">Stipulation</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; ">s</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; "><span><span></span>
					</span>and Jurisdiction</span></p>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>The parties stipulated to the following:<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:156px; text-indent:-.635cm; margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:16px; text-align:justify; margin-left:84.467px; text-indent:-.635cm; widows:2; orphans:2; margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:16px; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:normal; padding-right:20px;">1.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Jurisdiction of this proceeding is conferred upon the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission by Section 10(c) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (hereinafter “the Act”), 29 U.S.C. § 569(c).</span></p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:156px; text-indent:-.635cm; margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:16px; text-align:justify; margin-left:84.467px; text-indent:-.635cm; widows:2; orphans:2; margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:16px; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:normal; padding-right:20px;">2.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Respondent, Yantis Company, is an employer engaged in a business affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 3(5) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 652(5).</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span></p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:156px; text-indent:-.635cm; margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:16px; text-align:justify; margin-left:84.467px; text-indent:-.635cm; widows:2; orphans:2; margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:16px; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:normal; padding-right:20px;">3.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">As a result of OSHA Inspection No. 1061230 (the “Inspection”), Respondent Yantis Company was issued a citation (the “Citation”) on September 9, 2015 for a repeat violation of 29 C.F.R. 1926.652(c), with a penalty of $</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">35,000.00, and</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
					</span>Respondent denied the allegations contained in the Citation.<span>
					</span></span></p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:156px; text-indent:-.635cm; margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:16px; text-align:justify; margin-left:84.467px; text-indent:-.635cm; widows:2; orphans:2; margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:16px; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:normal; padding-right:20px;">4.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">On May 23, 2011, the parties entered into an Informal Settlement Agreement related to OSHA Inspection No. 314305095, in which Respondent waived its right to contest the citation and penalties, which citation and penalties were amended per the terms of the Informal Settlement Agreement to a classification of “other than serious” for a violation of 29 C.F.R. 1926.652(a)(1), with a penalty of $10,780.00.</span></p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:156px; text-indent:-.635cm; margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:16px; text-align:justify; margin-left:84.467px; text-indent:-.635cm; widows:2; orphans:2; margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:16px; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:normal; padding-right:20px;">5.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">On September 30, 2015, Respondent timely filed a notice of contest in regard to the Citation 1, Item 1 issued on September 9, 2015 in regard to Inspection No. 1061230.<span>
					</span></span></p>
			<div>
				<p style="margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:16px; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">(Tr. 244–45).</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:16px; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "> </p>
			</div>
			<p style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-1.27cm; line-height:2; margin-left:72px; text-indent:-1.27cm; widows:2; orphans:2; line-height:2; ">
				<span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-weight:bold; padding-right:20px;">III.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; ">Factual<span>
					</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; ">Background</span></p>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Respondent is a construction company operating out of<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">San Antonio, Texas. (Ex. C-2</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">).<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">The</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>business is split into four divisions, including utilities; site work; site excavation; and<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">paving, asphalt, and concrete, and employs over 300 employees.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>(Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">156, 248). On<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">May 5, 2015</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, a crew of</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Respondent’s</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>employees, led by<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">foreman<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Christopher Esquivel,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">was installing a new sewer line to connect to the existing main line of the<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Alamo Ranch</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>subdivision.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Respondent referred to this portion of the project as</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>“Alamo 36”. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">89–90; Ex. R-22</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). According to Respondent’s Assistant Safety Manager, Samuel De La Rosa, the particular section of trench that Esquivel’s crew was working on was merely one portion of a much larger trench that had been progressively dug up and backfilled over the course of the project.</span><span class="style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><a name="ftnref3" href="#ftn3">2</a></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>(Tr. 486–87).<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">The crew was a little slow in starting that morning because</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>it</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">was raining</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>(Tr. 282–83).</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">That same day, Compliance Safety and Health Officers (“CSHO”) Jermaine Thomas and<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">John</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Lawhorn were driving around the<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Alamo Ranch</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>subdivision. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">113–14</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). Due to the increased construction activity in the area, the CSHOs decided to drive around and review worksites. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">112</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">).</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">
					</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">CSHO Lawhorn</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>testified the worksite at<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Alamo 36</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>was empty when they initially drove by. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">112–13</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). However, after driving through the subdivision, the CSHOs again drove past the<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">previously unoccupied worksite to find workers standing around the trench</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">114</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). As they pulled up, they noticed one worker either<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">exiting or entering</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>the trench via a ladder. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">115</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). At that point, CSHO Lawhorn decided to conduct an inspection</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>pursuant to the National Emphasis Program on Trenching and Excavations</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">According to CSHO Lawhorn, they first contacted Chris Esquivel</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">,</span><span class="style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><a name="ftnref4" href="#ftn4">3</a></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>who identified himself as the foreman, and requested permission to conduct an inspection. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">115–17</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 123). Esquivel told CSHO Lawhorn that he needed to contact the “safety guy” and that communications should go through that point of contact. (Tr. 120). CSHO Lawhorn testified that he suspended the opening conference at that point; however, he admits that he directed CSHO Thomas to take measurements of the trench and take photographs of the worksite. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">119; Ex.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">C-5</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">).</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "> The trench measured<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">between 9 and 10 feet deep,</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">3 to 4 feet wide, and</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">9 to 10 feet long</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, and did not have shoring installed nor were the walls sloped to any degree. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">131, 211, 484</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">; Ex.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">C-5</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). Both the CSHO and Respondent’s<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Assistant<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Safety<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Manager, De La Rosa</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, testified that the walls exhibited fissures, which indicate<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">soil separation</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">127, 481–82; Ex. C-5</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">).<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">CSHO Thomas testified that he took a soil sample from a spoil pile, which Esquivel indicated came from the trench. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">235–36</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). Subsequent analysis showed that the soil was type<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">B</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">.</span><span class="style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><a name="ftnref5" href="#ftn5">4</a></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>(Ex.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">C-9</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">).<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">After Esquivel concluded his call, he informed CSHO Lawhorn that he would be sending the employees<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">home</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, at which point CSHO Lawhorn asked CSHO Thomas to take photographs of the license plates of the departing vehicles, in case the need arose for identifying witnesses. (Tr. 120, 122). </span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Esquivel<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">had<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">called Johnathan Granados, Respondent’s<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Safety Manager</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, who testified that he arrived at the worksite at some point between 1:20 and 1:25 p.m. (Tr. 324). Granados stated that he did not see any additional photographs or measurements being taken during his time at the worksite, which coincides with CSHO Lawhorn’s testimony that he directed CSHO Thomas to continue taking photographs and measurements. (Tr. 324). Granados participated in an opening conference with CSHO Lawhorn and Esquivel, during which time CSHO Lawhorn told Granados that he had observed an employee in the trench, which, as the pictures illustrate, was neither shored nor sloped. (Tr. 325; Ex.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">C-5</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). At that point, CSHO Lawhorn interviewed Esquivel, who requested Granados be present. (Tr. 325). </span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">At some point after they had been pulled from the worksite, the crew was directed to return</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>for interviews with OSHA</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">. (Tr. 70).<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Of the employees CSHO Lawhorn interviewed, only John Salinas testified at trial. (Tr. 70). After the interviews were conducted, CSHO Lawhorn conducted a closing conference with Granados, during which time he recounted his observations, the scope of his inspection, and indicated that Respondent would be receiving a letter from OSHA. (Tr. 326). </span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">As Granados was walking away from the worksite to confer with his superiors, Michael Shafer and Arnold Briones, he heard Briones shout, “[W]hat the ‘F’ is that guy doing in the trench?” (Tr. 327). At that moment, Granados noticed Esquivel on the same ladder, exiting the trench that had prompted the OSHA inspection. (Tr. 327). </span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">De la Rosa testified that he heard CSHO Thomas grant Esquivel permission to enter the trench to gather tools; however, upon cross-examination, it was revealed that Esquivel merely asked whether he “could go and get the small tools?” (Tr. 328</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 465–66</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). Whether permission to enter the trench was expressly granted by CSHO Thomas is unclear as such was not covered during his testimony.</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">After the inspection had concluded, the crew was directed to return to Respondent’s yard, where they were interviewed regarding that day’s events and ultimately disciplined for their actions</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>(or inaction)</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>during that time (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">69–71, 430</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). All of the employees present that day were suspended for violating<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">a work</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>rule</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, which required employees to report hazardous conditions or practices</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">.</span><span class="style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><a name="ftnref6" href="#ftn6">5</a></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>(Ex. R-17).</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "> Esquivel was not only suspended, but was demoted from his position</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>as foreman, which resulted in<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">a substantial reduction in pa</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">y</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">316, 532</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">; Ex.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">R-20</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">).<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">As a result of the inspection, Complainant issued a citation<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">alleging a repeat violation of<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">29 C.F.R. § 1926.652(a)(1)</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, which will be discussed in greater detail below.</span></p>
			</div>
			<p style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-1.27cm; line-height:2; margin-left:72px; text-indent:-1.27cm; widows:2; orphans:2; line-height:2; ">
				<span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-weight:bold; padding-right:20px;">IV.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; ">
				</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; ">Discussion</span></p>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">To prove a violation of an OSHA standard, Complainant must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that: (1) the cited standard applied to the facts; (2) the employer failed to comply with the terms of the cited standard; (3) employees were exposed or had access to the hazard covered by the standard, and (4) the employer had actual or constructive knowledge of the violative condition (</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">i.e.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, the employer knew, or with the exercise of reasonable diligence could have known). </span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Atlantic Battery Co.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">,</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">16 BNA OSHC 2131 (No. 90-1747, 1994).<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">The key issue in this case is<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">knowledge.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">As the following discussion will illustrate, Complainant established the first three elements of its<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">prima facie</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>case.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">As regards the fourth element, however, Respondent contends that the violation was the product of unpreventable employee misconduct, whether by Esquivel as the supervisor or by Christopher Owens, the employee discovered in the trench.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">By dint of location</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">—the events of this case occurred in Texas, which is in the jurisdiction of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals—the Court is confronted with</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">a multi-faceted dispute</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>regarding the<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">respective burdens of proof<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">applicable</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>to the question of knowledge</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">W.G. Yates</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">459 F.3d 604 (5th Cir. 2006) (holding it is Secretary’s burden to establish foreseeability of supervisor’s misconduct)</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">;<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">but see</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Consol. Freightways Corp.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 15 BNA OSHC 1317 (No. 86-351, 1991) (placing burden on Respondent to rebut imputation of knowledge)</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">
					</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Thus, depending on the employee identified as having committed the misconduct, the respective burdens of proof will shift. Irrespective of that shift, however, the Court finds the facts presented in this case warrant dismissal of the Citation. Ultimately, Complainant failed to show that the events of<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">May 15, 2015,</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>were anything more than the result of idiosyncratic behavior, which could not have been foreseen by Respondent.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span></p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:96px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:96px; text-indent:-.635cm; widows:2; orphans:2; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-weight:bold; padding-right:20px;">a.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; ">Citation<span>
					</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; ">1</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; ">, Item</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; "><span><span></span>
					</span>1<span>
					</span></span></p>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Complainant alleged a<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">repeat</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>violation of the Act as follows:<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:16px; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px; margin-right:48px; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">29 CFR 1926.652(a)(1)</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">:</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "> Each employee in an excavation was not protected from cave-ins by an adequate protective system designed in accordance with 1926.652(c):<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:16px; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px; margin-right:48px; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">West side of Maurer Ranch Rd., on or about May 5, 2015, employees were exposed to cave-in and/or caught-in hazards while leak checking a previously installed water line inside a previously disturbed trench that was approximately 4 feet in width by 10.5 feet in depth by 41 feet in length and did not have any form of cave-in protection systems in place.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:16px; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px; margin-right:48px; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">The Yantis Company was previously cited for a violation of this occupational safety and health standard or its equivalent standard 29 CFR 1926.652(a)(1), which was contained in OSHA inspection number 314305095, citation number 1, item number 1, and was affirmed as a final order on 24 March 2011 with respect to a workplace located a [sic] Mediator Path & Rocket Lane, Converse, TX.<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:16px; text-align:justify; margin-right:48px; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Citation and Notification of Penalty<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">at 6.</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">The cited standard provides:<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:16px; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px; margin-right:48px; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Each employee in an excavation shall be protected from cave-ins by an adequate protective system designed in accordance with paragraph (b) or (c) of this section except when:<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:125px; text-indent:-1.27cm; margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:16px; text-align:justify; margin-left:125px; text-indent:-1.27cm; margin-right:48px; widows:2; orphans:2; margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:16px; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-style:normal; padding-right:20px;">(i)</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Excavations are made entirely in stable rock; or</span></p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:125px; text-indent:-1.27cm; margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:16px; text-align:justify; margin-left:125px; text-indent:-1.27cm; margin-right:48px; widows:2; orphans:2; margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:16px; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-style:normal; padding-right:20px;">(ii)</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Excavations are less than 5 feet (1.52m) in depth and examination of the ground by a competent person provides no indication of a potential cave-in.<span>
					</span></span></p>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">29 C.F.R. §<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">1926.652(a)(1)</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">.</span></p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:156px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:156px; text-indent:-.635cm; widows:2; orphans:2; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:normal; padding-right:20px;">1.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; ">The Standard Applies</span></p>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">
					</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">The scope and application paragraph of Subpart P, which governs excavations, states, “This subpart applies to all open excavations made in the earth’s surface. Excavations are defined to include trenches.” 29 C.F.R. § 1926.650(a). There is no dispute the excavation at issue was a trench, which measured<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">approximately 10 feet deep</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>by<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">4 feet wide</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>by<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">10 feet long</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">. </span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See id.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>§ 1926.650(b) (defining a trench as “a narrow excavation (in relation to its length) made below the surface of the ground”). Based on those measurements, specifically as they relate to depth, the first exception does not apply.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See id.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">§ 1926.652(a) (exception made for trenches less than 5 feet deep). Further, there is no question that at least one employee, Christopher Owens, was in the trench. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">468</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). Thus, on the face of it, the standard applies.<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Respondent contends, however, that the trench was dug in stable rock, which, according to the standard, is<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">the other</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>exception to the shoring or sloping requirements imposed by §§ 1926.652(b) or (c). The Commission has held that the burden of establishing an exception to a standard falls to the party seeking to benefit from it.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See Kaspar Electroplating Corp.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 16 BNA OSHC 1517, 1522 (No. 90-2866, 1993)</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">. In support of its claim that the trench was dug in stable rock, Respondent points<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">out that it had to use a “trencher” in order to remove the dirt from the trench in the first instance. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">334–35</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). According to<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">De La Rosa</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">,</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>a trencher</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, also referred to as a rock saw,</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>is typically used when<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">traditional digging methods, such as the excavator bucket or a hoe ram, are insufficient for the job</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">472</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">).</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "> Most of Respondent’s witnesses testified that the trench was located in stable rock.<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">The Court finds that Respondent failed to establish an exception to the standard. </span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">The term “stable rock” is defined in the regulations as “</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">natural solid mineral material that can be excavated with vertical sides and will remain intact while exposed.”<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">While Respondent presented evidence to show that the material in the trench was difficult to remove with conventional means, there was no testimony from direct witnesses regarding the manner in which the trencher was used,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">i.e.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, whether it was used in particularly difficult spots</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">,</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>or whether it was used to dig the entire trench, nor was there any first-hand testimony from Respondent’s witnesses regarding whether the walls were, in fact, comprised of “natural solid mineral”.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">In fact,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">the<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">evidence from Respondent’s witnesses regarding the type of soil in the trench militates against the stable rock exception. </span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Just as it is Complainant’s burden to establish the soil type to determine the appropriate protective measures, Respondent must<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">proffer</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">convincing evidence to establish that the excavation was dug in stable rock.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Kaspar</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">supra</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">According to<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">CSHO Lawhorn</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, Esquivel identified t</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">ype A, B, and C soil, but had not identified stable rock in the excavation. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">142</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). Respondent did not conduct any further analysis of the trench walls after the inspection to suggest otherwise. Further, though Respondent contests the quality of the soil sample taken by CSHO Thomas,</span><span class="style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><a name="ftnref7" href="#ftn7">6</a></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>and its subsequent chain of custody, the sample and the appearance of the spoil pile from which it was taken provide additional evidence that, at the very least, the trench was not dug in stable rock.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">
					</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">This account is supported by</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>the fact that the laboratory results indicate type<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">B</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>soil. (Ex.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">C-9</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). Thus, irrespective of Respondent’s protest that the spoil pile was not wholly representative of the contents of the trench, the testimony is clear that the contents of the spoil pile were, at one point, inside the trench and did not exhibit the characteristics of stable rock such that protective equipment was not required. </span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Salinas and De La Rosa both testified</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>the utility work at this particular location involved tying a new sewer line into the existing main. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">48, 493</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). </span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Also contrary to Respondent’s claim is the testimony of Respondent’s own employees. </span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">According to Salinas, he handed a tool to the exposed employee,</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Christopher Owens,</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>who was reinstalling a coupling that had come loose from the junction when they were digging the trench.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; position:relative;font-size:0.58em; bottom: 1ex;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><a name="ftnref8" href="#ftn8">7</a></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>(Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">51</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">–56). The junction, according to Salinas, is where the new pipe t</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">ied into the existing main. (</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Id.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). Thus, the employee was standing in an unprotected trench, which was dug in previously disturbed soil.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Based on the conditions and location of the work,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">De La Rosa</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>also</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>believed the trench at issue contained previously disturbed soil. (Tr. 495).<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Given the testimony of De La Rosa and Salinas, coupled with the foregoing discussion, the Court finds<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">the point<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">in the trench<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">at which the new sewer line was being tied into the existing main was located in previously disturbed soil.<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">According to<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Appendix A of Subpart P</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, previously disturbed soil<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">is characterized as Type B “except those which would be otherwise classified as Type C”</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>29 C.F.R. § 1926, Subpart P, App. A, sec. (b);<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">see also Stark Excavating, Inc.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 24 BNA OSHC 2218 (No. 09-0004<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">et al.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 2014)</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">. Anything other than solid rock does not qualify for the exception found at 1926.652(a)(1)(i). Accordingly, the Court finds Respondent did not meet its burden of proof as to the stable rock exception and finds that the standard applies. </span></p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:156px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:156px; text-indent:-.635cm; widows:2; orphans:2; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:normal; padding-right:20px;">2.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; ">The Terms of the Standard Were Violated</span></p>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Given the condition of the trench, the standard required Respondent to implement protective measures to prevent a cave-in. The standard indicates two potential methods for abatement, including sloping/benching the walls of the trench, or installing shoring.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">29 C.F.R. §</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">§</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>1926.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">652(b), (c)</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">. The soil type then dictates the proper protective measure.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Id.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "> Respondent’s trench was neither sloped, benched, nor shored when Esquivel directed Owens to enter the trench to fix the sewer line connection. Accordingly, the terms of the standard were violated.<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:156px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:156px; text-indent:-.635cm; widows:2; orphans:2; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:normal; padding-right:20px;">3.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; ">Employees Had Access to the Hazard</span></p>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">
					</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">As discussed above in Section<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">III</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">supra</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, Respondent’s employee, Owens, entered the noncompliant, unprotected trench in order to repair a pipe line connection. Salinas testified that he handed a tool to Owens when he was in the trench to facilitate the repair. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">52</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). </span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">None of these points<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">were</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>refuted by Respondent. Accordingly, the Court finds Respondent’s employee was exposed to the hazard.<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:156px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:156px; text-indent:-.635cm; widows:2; orphans:2; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:normal; padding-right:20px;">4.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; ">Respondent Did Not Have Knowledge of the Condition</span></p>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">As stated previously, the crux of this case is knowledge. The foregoing discussion illustrates that, notwithstanding some discrepancies in detail, Respondent’s worksite had a non-compliant, unprotected trench with an employee inside of it. The question is whether<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Respondent should be held responsible for the violation. </span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">“Congress q</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">uite clearly did not intend . . .<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">to impose strict liability: The duty was to be an achievable one</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>. . . .</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Congress intended to require elimination only of preventable hazards.”<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Horne Plumbing</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span>& Heating Co. v. OSHRC</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">,</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>528 F.2d</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>564,</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>568</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>(5th</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Cir. 1976)<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">(quoting<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Nat’l Realty</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span>& Constr. Co. v. OSHRC</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">,</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>489 F.2d<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">1257,</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>1265</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">–</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">66</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>(D.C. Cir. 1973)</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">).</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">
					</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">“Nothing in the Act . . . makes an employer an insurer or guarantor of employee compliance [with the Act] at all times.”<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Id.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>at 570 (quoting<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Brennan v. OSHRC</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 511 F.2d 1139, 1144 (9th Cir. 1975)). Instead, “the Act seeks to require employers to protect against preventable and foreseeable dangers to employees in the workplace.”<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">W.G. Yates & Sons Co., Inc. v. OSHRC</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 459 F.3d 604, 607 (5th Cir. 2006).<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Thus, in order to establish Respondent had knowledge of the condition, Complainant must show “that the cited employer knew or, with the exercise of reasonable diligence, could have known of the presence of the violative condition.” </span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">N & N Contractors, Inc.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 18 BNA OSHC 2121 (No. 96-0606, 2000). Reason</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">able diligence requires, amongst other things:</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>the formulation and implementation of ad</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">equate work rules; training programs to ensure work is safe; adequate supervision</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, including workplace inspection, anticipating potential hazards, and taking measures to prevent violations.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Id.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">
					</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">The actual or constructive knowledge of a supervisor can be imputed to the employ</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">er “</span><span style="font-size:12pt; text-decoration:underline ;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; text-decoration:underline ;">unless</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>the employer establishes that it took all necessary precautions to prevent the violations, including adequate instruction and supervision of its supervisor.”<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Consol. Freightways Corp.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 15 BNA OSHC 1317 (No. 86-351, 1991) (citing<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Daniel Constr. Co.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 10 BNA OSHC 1549, 1552 (No. 16265, 1982)) (emphasis<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">in original). </span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">The uncontroverted testimony is that Esquivel directed Owens, a</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>subordinate</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>employee, to enter the unprotected trench to fix a pipe sleeve that had been damaged when backfill was being removed from the trench.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">According to Salinas, when Esquivel directed<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Owens to enter the trench, Salinas said, “We can’t get in there. We don’t have no shoring.” (Tr. 50). In response, Esquivel stated it wasn’t going to take that long, so they should make the connection and cover the hole back up. (Tr. 50). After that, the crew placed a ladder in the trench, and the employee got in to place the sleeve on the pipe. (Tr. 50). At that point, CSHOs Lawhorn and Thomas arrived. (Tr. 50). </span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">E</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">ither<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Owens, as the employee who entered the trench, or Esquivel, who directed him to do so,</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">could</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">serve as the reference point for the violation</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">. </span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Herein lies the wrinkle—because this case occurred in the Fifth Circuit, the Court is obliged to apply the case law of that circuit.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Brooks Well Servicing, Inc.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 20 BNA OSHC 1286 (No. 99-0849, 2003)</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">(holding “[w]hen the law of the circuit to which a case would likely be appealed differs from the Commission’s case law, we apply the law of that circuit”)</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">. Insofar as the misconduct is committed by a supervisor, the Fifth Circuit holds<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">it is the Secretary’s burden</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>to prove that the misconduct of the supervisor was foreseeable.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">W.G. Yates</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 459 F.3d 604</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">. This is contrary to Commission precedent, as well as the holdings of other circuit courts, which places the onus on the employer to rebut the imputation of its supervisor’s knowledge through evidence of training an</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">d supervision.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See, e.g.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Danis-Shook Jt. Venture XXV v. Secretary of Labor</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 319 F.3d 805, 811–12 (6th Cir. 2003) (holding supervisor’s knowledge of his own misconduct can be imputed to establish employer knowledge because such misconduct “raises an inference of lax enforcement and/or communication of the employer’s safety policy”)</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "> Regardless of which party owns the burden, however, the question is essentially the same:<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">were</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>the acts of<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">the supervisor foreseeable?</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>This is t</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">he case whether Esquivel wa</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">s merely a passive observer, through whom Respondent’s knowledge of the violative act is imputed, or whether he<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">wa</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">s an active participant in the misconduct. Because<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">either</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>question will ultimately be resolved on the basis of Esquivel’s training and supervision, the Court shall focus on him.</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Complainant<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">contends</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">that focusing on Esquivel as the bad actor is contrary to Fifth Circuit</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>precedent</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See W.G. Yates</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">459 F.3d 604</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">supra</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">. Specifically, Complainant argues</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">the holding of Yates is</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>inapposite because of the manner in which the supervisor was involved in the misconduct. The Court finds that this is a distinction without a difference. In<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Yates</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, the supervisor</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>physically participated in the misconduct—the foreman was working without fall protection on a slope with a precipitous drop-off</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>and his employees were wearing their harnesses backwards</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Id.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>at 605. The Fifth Circuit resolved the question of the foreman’s misconduct by determining whether the Secretary proved the foreman’s actions were foreseeable, as the Court proposes here.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Id.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">at 609.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">While the situation presented in this case is slightly different, the Court finds the analysis is the same.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Esquivel was not merely a passive observer of his subordinate’</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">s misconduct;</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>he<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">directed<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">the</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>employee to enter the trench in contravention of the standard</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">. This is misconduct in and of itself.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See, e.g.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Rawson Contractors, Inc.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 20 BNA OSHC 1078 (No. 99-0018, 2003) (</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">analyzing misconduct defense from standpoint of foreman that ordered employees into unprotected trench);</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span>CBI Svcs., Inc.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 19 BNA OSHC 1591 (No. 95-0489, 2001) (analyzing misconduct defense from standpoint of supervisors that directed<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">misuse of crane</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">).<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Accordingly, Respondent can be charged with knowledge only if Esquivel’s knowledge of his own misconduct is imputable to Yates</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Id.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>at 609. Such imputation is proper only if Complainant establishes that Esquivel’s conduct was foreseeable. </span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>In order to<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">prove</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Esquivel’s conduct was foreseeable, Complainant must<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">show</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>that Respondent’s safety policy, training, supervision, and discipline were insufficient</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Id.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>at 608–609</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">.</span><span class="style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><a name="ftnref9" href="#ftn9">8</a></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">
					</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:177.6px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:177.6px; text-indent:-.635cm; widows:2; orphans:2; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; padding-right:20px;">i.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; ">Safety Policy</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; ">,</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; "><span><span></span>
					</span>Training</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; ">, and Supervision</span></p>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>Respondent had a<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">clear set of work rules to prevent this type of violation from occurring. Respondent’s Excavation and Trenching Policy states, “At no time will an employee enter a trench or an excavation that is 5 feet deep or greater, and is not properly sloped, shored, benched, sheeted, braced, or otherwise supported.” (Ex. C-18). In addition to the policies governing trenches and excavations, Respondent also has a Trenching and Excavation Program, the purpose of which is to “ensure compliance with the OSHA Excavation Standard . . . . A competent person will never allow workers to be exposed to unsafe trench conditions, no matter how short the exposure will be!” (Ex. C-19). The Program subsequently lists the duties of the competent person, including steps for determining soil classification, training responsibilities, and understanding the appropriate protective measures commensurate with soil type. (Ex. C-19).<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">In addition, Respondent has consolidated much of this knowledge into a simple mandate known as the “4-10 Rule”. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">271–72</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). This rule dictates two distances—4 feet and 10 feet—which represent benchmarks indicating when trench protection should be used or staking out minimum distances away from work areas or operating equipment. (</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Id.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">).<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>Complainant does not dispute Respondent had an adequate work rule, but he contends the work rule was not adequately communicated. </span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">The Court disagrees. Will McCoy</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, Respondent’s<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">former<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">hiring official,</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>testified<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">as to the content of Respondent’s Orientation program, including providing the employees with above-discussed policies and procedures; giving them an opportunity to review the policies and having them sign an acknowledgement that the document has been read and understood; and showing a safety video, which contained a segment on trenching and excavations. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">408–17</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). Each of these activities is indicated and verified on the New Hire Check Lists for each of the employees present on the day of the OSHA inspection. (Ex. R-17 to R-21). </span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">By McCoy’s own admission,</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>not all employees read the entir</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">e set of policies; however, orientation is not the only method by which the rules regarding excavation and trenching are communicated.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See Pressure Concrete Constr. Co.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 15 BNA OSHC 2011 (No. 90-2668, 1992)</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>In addition to orientation, Respondent uses a series of mechanisms to ensure that its policies are understood and implemented. Respondent utilized ToolBox</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Safety Trainings, which were small sessions that took place at the worksite on an area of concern,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">e.g.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, foot protection, gasoline, and hard hats. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">278</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">; Ex. R-23). Although the specific rule at issue was not covered by ToolBox talks during the relevant period, the Court notes that in less than a month-and-a-half, Respondent implemented seven different sessions, each about a different topic, illustrating its general commitment to communication and training. (Ex. R-23). Further, each worksite supe</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">rvisor and his crew performed a Job Safety Analysis every morning. (Tr. 257). The JSAs introduced into evidence illustrate the hazards addressed and discussed by Esquivel and his crew, including multiple discussions of the hazards associated with open trenches (cave-ins) and the steps necessary to abate them (sloping, shoring, benching). (Ex. R-26). </span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Respondent also holds a bi-annual excavation and trenching class with everyone in the division. (Tr. 274).<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>More poignant, however, is the fact that this crew received trenching and excavation training from De La Rosa on March 24, 2016, or slightly more than a month prior to the OSHA inspection. (Ex. R-39). Complainant points out that<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">n</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">either Luis Revilla nor Mario Cervantes, who were present on the day of the OSHA inspection, received De La Rosa’s training and argues that this failure of proof is somehow indicative of Respondent’s failure to adequately communicate its work rule. This line of argument is misguided. First, neither Revilla nor Cervantes was an employee of Respondent on March 24, 2016, each being hired in the early part of April. (Ex. R-18, R-19). </span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Second, both Revilla and Cervantes received orientation training, which, as described<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">above, covered Respondent’s Trench and Excavation policy. (</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Id.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). </span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Third, there is no evidence that either Revilla or Cervantes was engaged in conduct that violated the Act such that a question remained as to their comprehension of that particular work rule. Finally</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, merely because Cervantes and Revilla were not employees on the date of this particular training does not mean that Respondent failed in its duties to communicate the rules, especially in light of the program described above.<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Although<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Complainant does not contest that Respondent took<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">steps to discover violations through proper supervision</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, the Court finds a review of how Respondent accomplishes this is both germane to the question of supervision</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>and to the issue of whether Respondent adequately</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>communicat</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">ed its</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>rules and policy. </span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">The record illustrates that Esquivel’s crew was a gro</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">up of fairly new employees. (Ex. R-17 to R-21</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). As such, De La Rosa, who is in charge of conducting worksite examinations, conducted<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">at least four</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>unannounced inspections of Esquivel’s crew</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>prior to the OSHA inspection</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">. (Ex.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">R-33 to R-36</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). De La Rosa testified that these inspections not only serve to ensure compliance with company policy, but also provide an opportunity for on-the-job training in a manner that is not available in the classroom during orientation. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">444</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). The Court finds these inspections, one of which occurred one week prior to the OSHA inspection, to be persuasive because in every<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">inspection log, De La Rosa indicated that the trench was properly shored or otherwise compliant. This evidence was buttressed by Salinas, who not only testified that he told Esquivel not to send Owens into the trench, but also stated that his crew, led by Esquivel, had used appropriate protection throughout that same period of time. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">78</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). Further, according to Salinas’ testimony, Esquivel recognized that he was violating the rule but opted to proceed anyway. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">50</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). Put simply, insofar as the inspection reports reveal that the worksite trench was complian</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">t</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>on an almost weekly basis, Respondent had repeated confirmation that its work rules were understood and had no basis to assume otherwise</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>such that additional training (over and above what was provided) was necessary</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">. </span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See Pressure Concrete</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">,</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>15 BNA OSHC 2011<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">(“A reasonably prudent employer would attempt to give instructions that can be understood and remembered by its employees, and would make at least some effort to assure that the employees did, in fact, understand the instructions.”). </span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>Particularly damaging to Complainant’s case is the testimony of Rodney Koch, Esquivel’s superintendent.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Koch testified that he visited the Alamo 36 worksite on the morning of the inspection and met with Esquivel, who told him that they had found the leak and needed some shoring to get down in the hole. (Tr. 511). Koch told Esquivel that there was shoring available at another worksite just three or four blocks down the street. (Tr. 511). Esquivel never followed up with Koch about the need for additional, or different, shoring. (Tr. 512). </span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>The foregoing illustrates t</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">he myriad ways in which the trenching policy was communicated to the crew generally, and to Esquivel specifically. To recap, in the roughly two-month period of Esquivel’s employment with Respondent, he went through orientation, which included a segment on trenching; he attended an additional training on trenching roughly one month after he was hired; he performed JSAs, identifying hazards and abatement related to trenching; he was the subject of multiple, internal inspections that revealed his crew was in compliance with the trenching policy; and he was reminded of that very same policy on the morning of the OSHA inspection. Based on the foregoing, the Court finds Complainant failed to prove that the work rule was not adequately communicated.<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:177.6px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:177.6px; text-indent:-.635cm; widows:2; orphans:2; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; padding-right:20px;">ii.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; ">Discipline</span></p>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>The remaining point of contention regarding knowledge is the question of whether Respondent adequately enforced the trenching policy through a system of progressive discipline. Complainant<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">points to two deficiencies, which he believes illustrate Respondent’s failure to adequately enforce its rules. First, Complainant contends that, although Respondent introduced a voluminous amount of documentation illustrating the implementation of its disciplinary policy, the only reports of discipline related specifically to the trenching policy dated back to 2012, or two-and-a-half yea</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">rs prior to the inspection. (</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Ex.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">C-59</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). Complainant also points out that<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">some of<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">the</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">se</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>previous discipline report</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">s</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>w</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">ere</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>in response to an OSHA inspection and not the result of Yantis discovering violations of its own work rules.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Second, Complainant contends that, even with respect to this incident, Respondent failed to properly discipline its own employees</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, noting that: (1) even after the inspection took place, Esquivel re-entered the unprotected trench in plain view of three of his supervisors; (2) there is no report indicating Esquivel was written up in accordance with the disciplinary program; and (3) none of the other employees present complied with, or were disciplined for violating, Respondent’s policy to call the safety manager upon witnessing the violation.<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Although the Court was not presented with a complete record of every single trenching violation observed and written up by Respondent, Respondent nonetheless presented 37 pages of violation history, dating back to 2007.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>(Ex. R-58).<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>This voluminous record, in a general sense, conveys that it takes its responsibilities seriously as to all work policy violations, and the particular write-ups further illustrate enforcement of the particular rule at issue. Simply because the sample write-ups introduced at trial were older does not mean that subsequent violations in the log did not involve similar subject matter. In that respect, it was Complainant’s obligation to illustrate a deficiency in the disciplinary program; however, he only illustrated a gap in the record it was his obligation to fill. By all accounts, Respondent’s employees are disciplined for violations of company policy and OSHA standards, and Respondent has illustrated that employees have been disciplined in the past for violations of the specific policy at issue.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "> Complainant has not shown (as he possesses the burden) that Respondent was recalcitrant in its duty to discipline, nor has he shown that Respondent failed to issue proper discipline in this case.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>Complainant’s arguments regarding the discipline meted out in this case have more to do with documentation than actual implementation of disc</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">ipline; in one case, Complainant is just plain wrong</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">. According to the testimony of<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">De La Rosa</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, the entire crew on Alamo 36 was disciplined. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">467–68</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). </span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Each crew member, including Esquivel, has a Disciplinary Action Form in his personnel file, and each one of those forms indicates that the crew member was suspended for his role in the violation. (Ex. R-17 to R-21). In some instances, this actually represented a form of progressive discipline because certain crew members had received<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">written<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">warnings for other violations committed in the weeks leading up to the inspection. (Ex.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">R-18 to R-20</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). </span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Esquivel,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">according to the testimony of multiple management officials</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, was both suspended and subsequently demoted from his position as foreman, which Granados testified constituted a significant reduction in wage. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">316</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">).<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Although no documentation of the demotion was introduced into evidence, the Court credits the testimony of<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Granados, De La Rosa, and Briones</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, to support a finding that<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Esquivel</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>was, in fact, disciplined as such. Further, though<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">there is no<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">documentation</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>that Esquivel was specifically disciplined for his subsequent foray into the unprotected trench, the testimony of<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Respondent’s management team</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>convinces the Court that the entirety of Esquivel’s actions on the day of the inspection were taken into co</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">nsideration when he was disciplined.</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>Based on the foregoing, the Court finds Complainant failed to prove that the actions of Esquivel were foreseeable. Accordingly, Citation 1, Item 1 shall be VACATED.</span></p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:72px; text-indent:-1.27cm; widows:2; orphans:2; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; padding-right:20px;">V.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; ">CONCLUSION</span></p>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">As<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">stated repeatedly above, this case hinged on the question of knowledge. The parties addressed a myriad of other issues, including the veracity of CSHO Lawhorn’s testimony, the quality of the soil sample taken, and the propriety of taking photographs and measurements while an opening conference is pending. Ultimately, however, none of these ancillary issues had any significant impact on the resolution of this case. The first three elements of Complainant’s<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">prima facie<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">case were easily proved, irrespective of the credibility or admissibility issues addressed by Respondent, because the facts necessary to prove them were generally agreed upon by all of the witnesses who testified.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>As to knowledge, however, the Court finds Complainant failed to show a deficiency in Respondent’s training and safety program such that Respondent should be held responsible for the actions of a supervisor that, by all accounts, acted contrary to the law, his training, and contemporaneous warnings from both a subordinate and his supervisor.<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:center; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline ;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline ;">ORDER</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">The foregoing Decision constitutes the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in accordance with Rule 52(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. </span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclus</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">ions of Law, it is ORDERED that:</span></p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:48px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px; text-indent:-.635cm; widows:2; orphans:2; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="font-size:12pt; padding-right:20px;">1.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Citation 1</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, Item<span>
					</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">1</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
					</span>and its associated penalty are hereby VACATED.</span></p>
			<div>
				<p style="text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">SO ORDERED</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; text-decoration:underline ;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; text-decoration:underline ;">/s/</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">John H. Schumacher</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Judge, OSHRC</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Date:</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "> April 18, 2017</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Denver, Colorado</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span></p>
			</div>
			<hr/>"
      <div>
				<p>
					<a name="ftn-1" href="#ftnref-1"></a> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p>
					<a name="ftn0" href="#ftnref0"></a> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p>
					<a name="ftn1" href="#ftnref1"></a> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText " style="text-align:justify; ">
					<a name="ftn2" href="#ftnref2"><span class="style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">1 </span></a>. <span><span></span>
					</span>This worksite was part of a larger project, which Respondent referred to as the Alamo Ranch 36 Project. (Tr.<span>
					</span>509).</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText " style="text-align:justify; ">
					<a name="ftn3" href="#ftnref3"><span class="style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">2 </span></a>. De la Rosa also testified that the trench was divided into stations<span><span></span>
					</span>to indicate the distance from the starting point, i.e.,<span>
					</span>Station<span><span></span>
					</span>300 would be 300 feet from the beginning point. (Tr. 486).</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText " style="text-align:justify; ">
					<a name="ftn4" href="#ftnref4"><span class="style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">3 </span></a>. Mr. Esquivel was not called as a witness.<span>
					</span><span><span></span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText " style="text-align:justify; ">
					<a name="ftn5" href="#ftnref5"><span class="style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">4 </span></a>. Respondent takes issue with both the source of the sample and the chain of custody resulting in the lab’s determination that the soil was type<span>
					</span>B. As will be discussed later in Section<span>
					</span>IV.A.1,<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">infra</span>, irrespective of the source of the soil sample, the trench was located in previously disturbed soil.<span><span></span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText " style="text-align:justify; ">
					<a name="ftn6" href="#ftnref6"><span class="style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">5 </span></a>. One employee, Mario<span>
					</span>Cervantes,<span><span></span>
					</span>was ultimately fired for conduct unrelated to the inspection itself. (Tr.<span>
					</span>312–13).<span>
					</span><span><span></span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText " style="text-align:justify; ">
					<a name="ftn7" href="#ftnref7"><span class="style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">6 </span></a>. Respondent raised objections to the soil sample taken by CSHO Thomas during the inspection and the subsequent chain of custody. According to CSHO Thomas, he took a sample from the spoil pile based on Esquivel’s representation that it came from the trench. Subsequent testimony revealed that the spoil pile likely contained soil from all around the worksite, calling into question whether the spoil pile was representative of the soil in the trench. Notwithstanding the characterization or origin of the sample, however, the weight of the evidence illustrates that the trench, at the point of the line connection, was dug in previously disturbed soil.<span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText " style="text-align:justify; ">
					<a name="ftn8" href="#ftnref8"><span class="style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">7 </span></a>. As noted above, the trenches were backfilled once the pipe was laid; however, in some instances, the trench was backfilled prior to completing the project so that an open hole in the ground would not be left unattended.<span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText " style="text-align:justify; ">
					<a name="ftn9" href="#ftnref9"><span class="style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">8 </span></a>. <span><span></span>
					</span>The Court’s analysis of this<span><span></span>
					</span>question is<span>
					</span>basically<span>
					</span>the same as<span>
					</span>the analysis of the<span><span></span>
					</span>affirmative defense of supervisory misconduct—in both cases, the ultimate question to be resolved is foreseeability. The only difference is to<span>
					</span>which party<span><span></span>
					</span>that burden devolves. Even if the Court merely focused on the question of whether Esquivel’s knowledge of Owens’ actions should be imputed, the<span>
					</span>ultimate<span>
					</span>issue<span><span></span>
					</span>of knowledge<span><span></span>
					</span>would still be resolved by determining whether Esquivel’s failure to properly supervise was foreseeable.<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">See<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Consol. Freightways Corp.</span>, 15 BNA OSHC 1317 (No. 86-351, 1991).</p>
			</div></div></body>
</html>