United States of America

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

1120 20th Street, N.W., Ninth Floor

Washington, DC 20036-3457

SECRETARY OF LABOR,

Complainant, 

v. OSHRC Docket No. 16-0858 

EMPLOYMENT 2000 CORP., 

Respondent. 

APPEARANCES:

Christine T. Eskilson, Deputy Regional Solicitor; Michael D. Felsen, Regional Solicitor; M. Patricia Smith, 

Solicitor; U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, DC and Boston, MA

 For the Complainant

 Stephen Lang; Easton, MA

 For the Respondent

REMAND ORDER

Before: ATTWOOD, Chairman; and MACDOUGALL, Commissioner. 

BY THE COMMISSION:

Before the Commission is a July 26, 2016 decision of Administrative Law Judge Dennis 

L. Phillips granting the Secretary’s motion to dismiss Respondent’s untimely notice of contest

(NOC). In his decision, the judge determined that Respondent, appearing pro se, was not entitled 

to relief from a final order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1). See 29 U.S.C. 

§ 659(a) (citation “deemed a final order of the Commission” absent filing of timely NOC); FED.

R. CIV. P. 60(b)(1) (“On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party . . . from a final 

judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or 

excusable neglect . . . .”). For the reasons that follow, we set aside the judge’s decision and 

remand this case to the judge for further proceedings. 

Employment 2000 is a recruiting and staffing agency that provided production line 

workers to a pharmaceutical manufacturing facility. The Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration issued Respondent a five-item serious citation with proposed penalties totaling 
- 2 - 

$25,200. The citation was sent to Respondent by certified mail, and on November 30, 2015, the 

return receipt was signed by “Doyle.” At the time, an individual named David Doyle was a sales 

manager for Respondent and was one of the individuals who participated in OSHA’s opening 

conference for the inspection commenced on June 4, 2015. Based on the citation’s purported 

receipt date, Respondent’s NOC was due by December 21, 2015. 29 U.S.C. § 659(a) (employer 

must notify Secretary within “fifteen working days” of receiving notice of citation that it intends 

to contest citation and/or proposed penalty). 

However, not until after the company’s receipt of a demand letter for outstanding 

penalties, dated April 13, 2016, and a subsequent meeting between Respondent’s president and 

an OSHA Assistant Area Director on April 22, 2016, did Respondent mail its NOC to OSHA. In 

its April 22, 2016 NOC, Respondent’s president claims that he never received the citation and 

that his company was not “at fault in this matter.” In response, OSHA informed Respondent that 

it must contact the Commission directly to pursue this matter further. On May 10, 2016, 

Respondent filed a second NOC with the Commission, and the matter was assigned to the judge. 

On June 23, 2016, the Secretary filed a motion to dismiss Respondent’s NOC. Respondent did 

not file a response to the motion. 

On July 26, 2016, the same day the judge issued his decision granting the Secretary’s 

motion to dismiss, the Secretary sent a letter to Respondent’s president, indicating that: the letter 

“confirm[s] our agreement to resolve the [citation]”; the “enclosed [s]ettlement [a]greement 

incorporates all the terms”; and he should “review it, have it signed on the last page where 

indicated,” and then return it for a signature from OSHA and filing with the judge. A copy of 

this letter was faxed to the judge that same day. The judge’s decision was docketed with the 

Commission on August 9, 2016. 

On August 22, 2016, the Secretary filed an unopposed motion requesting that the 

Commission vacate the judge’s decision and approve the attached settlement agreement. Based 

on our review of the record, however, it is not clear whether Respondent ever received this

motion, as well as a number of other documents sent to it throughout the course of this case. 

Specifically, the following documents were sent to Respondent using the correct street address, 

city, and state, but not the correct zip code:1

 (1) the citation and return receipt form; (2) a debt 

 

1 The zip code used on these documents was 02334—the correct zip code is 02375, as identified 

in the return address included on Respondent’s April 22, 2016 NOC. 
- 3 - 

collection letter dated January 26, 2016; (3) the Secretary’s motion to dismiss; (4) the judge’s 

notice of decision; (5) the Commission’s notice of docketing of the judge’s decision; and (6) the 

Secretary’s motion currently pending before us. As to the citation, despite the signature from 

“Doyle” on the return receipt, Respondent’s president claims to have “never received” the 

citation. As to the other documents, there is nothing in the record to confirm whether 

Respondent received them. Nor does it appear that the judge was aware of the mailing address 

error at the time he issued his decision granting the Secretary’s motion to dismiss. 

In these circumstances, it is not clear whether Respondent received or had an opportunity 

to respond to the Secretary’s motion to dismiss or the judge’s decision granting the motion. We 

therefore set aside the judge’s decision, as requested in the Secretary’s motion to the 

Commission, and remand this case for the judge to: (1) provide Respondent with a copy of all 

the documents filed in this case; (2) allow Respondent an opportunity to respond to the 

Secretary’s dismissal motion; and (3) reconsider whether relief from a final order is warranted

under Rule 60(b)(1). Rheem Mfg. Co., 25 BNA OSHC 1838, 1839 (No. 15-1248, 2016) 

(remanding because “order denying [Rule 60(b)(1)] relief is premature based on the limited 

record”). If, upon reconsideration, the judge finds that a basis exists for granting Rule 60(b)(1)

relief, he should then consider whether to approve the settlement agreement, as requested by the 

Secretary in his motion. Commission Rule 100(c), 29 C.F.R. § 2200.100(c). 

SO ORDERED. 

/s/ 

 Cynthia L. Attwood 

 Chairman

/s/ 

Heather L. MacDougall

Dated: September 28, 2016 Commissioner
Some personal identifiers have been redacted for privacy purposes

United States of America

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

1120 20th Street, N.W., Ninth Floor

Washington, D.C. 20036-3457

SECRETARY OF LABOR,

Complainant,

 v. OSHRC DOCKET No. 16-0858

EMPLOYMENT 2000 CORP.,

 Respondent.

Appearances: 

Michael D. Felsen Employment 2000 Corp. 

Regional Solicitor 73 Belmont Street 

Office of the Solicitor, U.S. DOL – Boston Easton, MA 02334 

John F. Kennedy Federal Building, 

RM E-375 Stephen C. Lang 

Government Center President/CEO

Boston, MA 02203 

 

 Christine T. Eskilson, Attorney 

Before: 

Dennis L. Phillips 

 Administrative Law Judge 

DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING THE SECRETARY’S MOTION TO DISMISS 

RESPONDENT’S UNTIMELY NOTICE OF CONTEST

This proceeding is before the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (the 

Commission or OSHRC) pursuant to section 10(c) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 

1970, 29 U.S.C. § 659(c) (the Act). The court finds the Citation and Notification of Penalty 

issued to Employment 2000 Corp. (Employment 2000 or Respondent), in connection with 

Inspection No. 1068078, on November 25, 2015 is upheld as a Final Order since Employment 
- 2 - 

2000 cannot demonstrate “excusable neglect” for their untimeliness pursuant to Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 60(b)(1).2

 

I. Facts

Employment 2000 is a recruiting and staffing agency that provides 100-150 production 

line workers to Pharmasol Corporation (Pharmasol), a pharmaceutical manufacturing company. 

Affidavit (Aff.). of Assistant Area Director (AAD) Katie Nishimura ¶ 2. On May 28, 2015, one 

of these workers, [redacted], suffered a partial amputation of his finger while being trained at 

Pharmasol’s production facility. Id. at ¶ 3. Pharmasol President Marc Badia called the 

Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Hotline and reported the accident that 

day. Id. As a result, OSHA’s Boston South Area Office (BSAO) opened Inspection 1068078 

(the Inspection) to investigate any violations of the Act. See id. at ¶ 4. BSAO also opened an 

inspection of Pharmasol. Id.

On June 4, 2015, BSAO held an opening conference. Messrs. Badia and David Doyle, 

the Employment 2000 Sales Manager who oversaw the company’s Pharmasol account, were in 

attendance. Id. The opening conference covered the Inspection’s purpose and scope. Id. 

Through June and July, 2015, BSAO communicated with Employment 2000 President Stephen 

Lang in order to obtain safety records and schedule employee interviews. Id. On November 5, 

 

2 Rule 60(b) provides that: 

Grounds for Relief from a Final Judgment, Order, or Proceeding. On motion and just terms, the court may 

relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following 

reasons: 

(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; 

(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in 

time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);

(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by 

an opposing party; 

(4) the judgment is void; 

(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that 

has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or 

(6) any other reason that justifies relief. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 60(b). 
- 3 - 

2015, BSAO held a closing conference with Mr. Lang over the phone, covering Employment 

2000’s apparent violations, the company’s rights, and employee protections. Id.

Following the Inspection, BSAO issued a five-item Serious Citation 1 (the Citation) with 

proposed penalties totaling $25,200, to Employment 2000 on November 25, 2015. Id. at ¶ 5. 

The Citation included reference to a 15 working day time period within which a Notice of 

Contest (NOC) must be filed, stating: 

Right to Contest – You have the right to contest this Citation and Notification of 

Penalty. You may contest all citation items or only individual items. You may also 

contest proposed penalties and/or abatement dates without contesting the underlying 

violations. Unless you inform the Area Director in writing that you intend to contest 

the citation(s) and/or proposed penalty(ies) within 15 working days after receipt, the 

citation(s) and the proposed penalty(ies) will become a final order of the 

Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission and may not be reviewed by 

any court or agency.3

 On November 25, 2015, BSAO sent the Citation through certified mail to Employment 

2000’s business address at 73 Belmont Street, Easton, Massachusetts. Id. at ¶ 6. BSAO also 

sent Employment 2000 an OSHA 3000 booklet, which outlined the company’s rights and 

responsibilities. Id.

 On November 30, 2015, Mr. Doyle signed the certified mailing receipt for the Citation. 

Id. at ¶ 7; Ex. B to Nishimura Aff. The 15 working days specified in the Citation brought the 

due date of the notice of contest to December 21, 2015. Id. at ¶ 8. BSAO did not receive notice 

of contest or any payment for Employment 2000’s penalties on or before that date. Id. 

 On January 27, 2016, BSAO sent a debt collection letter, dated January 26, 2016, to 

Employment 2000 at the 73 Belmont Street, Easton, Massachusetts address, but BSAO received 

no response. Id. at ¶¶ 9-10; Nishimura Aff., Ex. C). On April 13, 2016, OSHA’s Office of 

Financial Management (OFM) also sent a demand letter for the outstanding penalty to the 73 

 

3 Nishimura Aff., Ex. A (emphasis in original). 
- 4 - 

Belmont Street, Easton, Massachusetts address. Id. at ¶ 11; Nishimura Aff., Ex. D. After 

receiving this letter, Mr. Lang went to BSAO and met with AAD Nishimura on April 22, 2016. 

See id. at ¶ 12. AAD Nishimura provided Mr. Lang with the Citation sent to Employment 2000 

and showed him the certified mailing receipt for the Citation that Mr. Doyle signed on November 

30, 2015. Id. Mr. Lang confirmed that Mr. Doyle worked for Employment 2000 as a Sales 

Manager, but said that he, Mr. Lang, had never seen the Citation. Id. 

After meeting with Ms. Nishimura, Mr. Lang sent a NOC to BSAO on April 22, 2016. 

BSAO received the notice on April 25, 2016. Mr. Lang stated he never received the Citation and 

he believed Respondent was not “at fault in this matter.” Respondent did not raise a meritorious 

defense in its NOC. Id. at ¶ 13; Nishimura Aff., Ex. E. BSAO responded to the letter, 

explaining that the Citation was deemed a final order of the Commission because the 15-day 

contest period had expired and that Employment 2000 could contact the Commission directly to 

continue pursuing the matter. Id. at ¶ 14; Nishimura Aff., Ex. F. 

 On May 10, 2016, the Commission received a letter from Mr. Lang, dated May 6, 2016, 

concerning the Citation. Mr. Lang stated one of Respondent’s employees was instructed by 

Pharmasol to go to a machine that did not have a guard on it. He asserted that “[t]his was not in 

his job description.” He stated Pharmasol was at fault, and not Respondent. The Commission 

docketed the instant matter as Docket No. 16-0858. 

 On June 23, 2016, the Secretary filed his Motion to Dismiss Respondent’s Untimely 

Notice of Contest. The Secretary seeks the dismissal of Respondent’s untimely Notice of 

Contest (NOC) because Respondent cannot demonstrate “excusable neglect” pursuant to Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1). 

 Respondent has not filed a response to the Secretary’s Motion to Dismiss Respondent’s 
- 5 - 

Untimely Notice of Contest.

II. The Cited Standard 

Citation 1, Item 1 alleges a serious violation of 29 C.F.R. § 1910.147(c)(4)(i), which 

states: 

Procedures were not developed, documented and utilized for the control of potentially 

hazardous energy when employees were engaged in activities covered by this section[.] 

 Citation 1, Item 2 a alleges a serious violation of 29 C.F.R. § 1910.147(c)(7)(i)(A), which 

states: 

Authorized employee(s) did not receive training in the recognition of applicable 

hazardous energy sources, the type and magnitude of the energy available in the 

workplace, and the methods and means necessary for energy isolation. 

 Citation 1, Item 2 b alleges a serious violation of 29 C.F.R. § 1910.147(c)(7)(iv), which 

states: 

The employer did not certify that employee training had been accomplished and kept up 

to date [.] 

Citation 1, Item 3 alleges a serious violation of 29 C.F.R. § 1910.147(f)(2)(i), which 

states:

When outside servicing personnel were engaged in activities in a facility, the onsite 

employer and the outside employer did not inform each other of their respective lockout 

or tagout procedures[.] 

Citation 1, Item 4 alleges a serious violation of 29 C.F.R. § 1910.219(c)(4)(i), which 

states: 

Shaft ends projecting more than one-half the diameter of the shaft were not guarded by 

nonrotating caps or safety sleeves. 

 Citation 1, Item 5 alleges a serious violation of 29 C.F.R. § 1910.219(f)(3), which states: 

Sprocket wheels and chains which were seven feet or less above floors or platforms were 

not enclosed[.] 
- 6 - 

III. Discussion

Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Act, if an employer fails to notify the Secretary within 15 

working days from receipt of the notice issued that it intends to contest the citation, the citation 

will be deemed a final order of the Commission.4

 29 U.S.C. § 659(a); Sec’y of Labor v. Barretto 

Granite Corp., 830 F.2d 396, 397 (1st Cir. 1987).5

 29 C.F.R. § 1903.17(a) requires that the 

employer notify the Area Director in writing “that he intends to contest such citation or proposed 

penalty before the Review Commission. Such notice of intention to contest shall be postmarked 

within 15 working days of the receipt by the employer of the notice of proposed penalty.” 

The Court finds that Employment 2000 did not file a NOC within 15 working days of its 

receipt of the Citation as section 10(a) of the Act and 29 C.F.R. § 1903.17(a) require. 

Respondent’s office received the Citation on November 30, 2015, as is proven by the signed 

certified mailing receipt for the Citation. Nishimura Aff. at ¶ 7. Fifteen working days following 

this date, excluding weekends and federal holidays, was December 21, 2015. Id. at ¶ 8. BSAO 

did not receive a letter to contest the Citation on or before that date. Id. Any NOC postmarked 

after the 15-day contest period has no effect. Barretto Granite Corp., 830 F.2d at 397-98; see 

also Therrel-Kizer, Inc., 1981 OSHD (CCH) ¶ 25234, p. 2 (No. 80-3845) (citing Kerr-McGee 

Chem. Corp., 4 BNA OSHC 1739 (No. 9890, 1976) (filing the notice on the sixteenth day after 

receipt of the citation was too late and the citation became a final order). 

The Commission may excuse a late filing pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

 

4 29 U.S.C. § 659(a) states: 

“... If, within fifteen working days from the receipt of the notice issued by the Secretary 

the employer fails to notify the Secretary that he intends to contest the citation or 

proposed assessment of penalty, and no notice is filed by any employee or representative 

of employees under subsection (c) of this section within such time, the citation and the 

assessment, as proposed, shall be deemed a final order of the Commission and not subject 

to review by any court or agency.” 5 The 15-day period is activated by the employer’s receipt of the notice. Barretto Granite Corp., 830 F.2d at 396.
- 7 - 

60(b)(1). Rule 60(b)(1) states that a late filing may be excused if the final order was entered as a 

result of “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.”6

 Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 60(b);

Ricop Constr. Co., 19 BNA OSHC 1802, 1802 (No. 01-0955, 2002) (reaffirming “an untimely 

NOC may be accepted in cases in which the delay in filing was a result of the Secretary’s 

deception or failure to follow proper procedures” or if an employer “can show that the 

Commission’s final order was entered due to ‘mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable 

neglect’”); Branciforte Builders, Inc., 9 BNA OSHC 2113 (No. 80-1920, 1981) (finding 

“Respondent’s failure to file a timely NOC could not be excused, since there was no evidence 

that the Respondent’s late filing resulted from the erroneous representations of the Secretary”); 

Monroe & Sons, Inc., 4 BNA OSHC 2016 (No. 6031, 1977), aff’d, 615 F.2d 1156, 1160 (6th Cir. 

1980).7 It is clear Employment 2000 is not entitled to relief under Rule 60(b)(1). There is no 

evidence of mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect. 

The Commission and federal courts evaluate claims of excusable neglect using the 

criteria set forth in Pioneer Inv. Servs. v. Brunswick Assocs., 507 U.S. 380, 395 (1993). The 

Commission takes into account “all relevant circumstances surrounding the party’s omission,” 

including: 

(1) “the danger of prejudice to the debtor, [2] the length of the delay and its potential impact 

on judicial proceedings, [3] the reason for the delay, including whether it was within the 

reasonable control of the movant, and [4] whether the movant acted in good faith.” 

Pioneer Inv. Servs., 507 U.S. at 395. 

The Court grants the most weight to the third factor, the reason for the delay, in 

determining excusable neglect under Rule 60(b). AR Med. LLC d/b/a/ San Pablo Med. Clinic, 24 

 

6 Supra note 1. 7 Monroe & Sons creates a two-part test for relief under 60(b)(1). The movant must demonstrate: “(1) The existence 

of mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. (2) That he has a meritorious defense.” Monroe & Sons, 

Inc., 615 F.2d at 1160.
- 8 - 

BNA OSHC 1665, 1666 (No. 12-2023, 2013), see also A.W. Ross Inc., 19 BNA OSHC 1147, 

1148 (No. 99-0945, 2000); Hosp. Del Maestro v. NLRB, 263 F.3d 173, 174-75 (1st Cir. 2001) 

(“The four Pioneer factors do not carry equal weight; the excuse given for the late filing must 

have the greatest import”). If the party lacks clear reason for the delay, excusable neglect is 

often not granted. CalHar Constr. Inc., 18 BNA OSHC 2151 (No. 98-367, 2000); NYNEX, 18 

BNA OSHC 1944, 1947 (No. 95-1671, 1999) (finding because employer failed to present 

evidence on the reason for the delay, employer did not establish excusable neglect). 

The Court finds that the delay was entirely the fault of Employment 2000. As seen by the 

accepting signature, Employment 2000 knew as of November 30, 2015 that it had received a 

Citation. Nishimura Aff. at ¶ 7. The Citation gives clear reference to the contest process. Id. at 

Ex. A.8

 Further, the Citation states that the Citation would become a final order of the 

commission without a properly filed NOC given within 15 working days. Id.

9

 BSAO also 

followed standard protocol and sent Employment 2000 an OSHA 3000 booklet which outlines its 

rights and responsibilities. Id. at ¶ 6. Despite having all of this information upon receipt of the 

citation, Employment 2000 failed to properly contest the Citation and file a NOC within the 

requisite time frame. Id. For the aforementioned reason, the Court finds Employment 2000 is 

responsible for its failure to act upon the received Citation and its failure to file a NOC. See

Toby Bell d/b/a S. Tex. Pigeon Removal, Lnoc, 24 BNA OSCHC 1936, 1938 (No. 13-0487, 

2013)10 (“An employer that has filed a late notice of contest ‘must bear the burden of its own 

lack of diligence in failing to carefully read and act upon the information contained in the 

citations.’”) (quoting Acrom Constr. Serv., 15 BNA OSHC 1123, 1126 (No. 88 2291, 1991)). 

 

8 Supra note 2. Right to Contest section of Citation and Notification of Penalty.

9 Id. Stating the citation “will become a final order of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission and 

may not be reviewed by any court or agency.” 

10 In Toby Bell the court found the employer should have contested the Citation timely, and that the late filing was 

not a result of excusable neglect. Toby Bell, 24 BNA OSCHC at 1938. 
- 9 - 

The Commission has held that employers must have a system in place for the handling of 

important documents and the processing of mail. Max Bayroff Corp., 1990 OSHD (CCH) ¶ 

29,004, p. 38,727 (No. 90-0724, 1990). The failure of such is not “excusable neglect,” and it 

does not warrant relief under Rule 60(b). Id. Furthermore, the Commission will not excuse an 

untimely NOC based on excusable neglect where no evidence is shown of the employer’s 

procedures. NYNEX, 18 BNA OSHC 1944, 1947 (No. 95-1671, 1999) (holding NYNEX failed 

to show its untimely notice of contest was not the result of excusable neglect because it “did not 

even introduce evidence as to its procedures for handling important documents”). In NYNEX, 

the citation received in the mail was misdirected to another office, where it sat for six weeks. Id. 

The Court finds, here, Employment 2000 failed to explain its procedures for the 

processing and handling of important documents received in the office. Mr. Doyle is on record 

for signing for the Citation on November 30, 2015, and yet, the company has no explanation for 

how the Citation was overlooked. This is analogous to NYNEX, and as mentioned above, the 

Commission held there that the procedures did not give rise to excusable neglect and Rule 60(b) 

relief. See NYNEX, 18 BNA OSHC at 1947. Furthermore, Employment 2000 has also not 

offered an explanation as to its failure to respond to the debt collection letter, dated January 26, 

2016. In considering both of these facts, the Court finds that Employment 2000 has offered no 

basis for Rule 60(b) relief. 

This is in line with earlier decisions. The Commission has consistently denied relief to 

employers who have negligently handled documents. J.F. Shea Co., 15 BNA OSHC 1092, 1094

(No. 89-976, 1991) (“[t]he Commission has not granted relief when the negligent handling of the 

document occurred, as it did here, in the employer’s own office”) (citing La.-Pac. Corp., 13 
- 10 - 

BNA OSCHC 2020, 2021 (No. 86-1266, 1989)).11 These findings have held true for 

circumstances including, but not limited to, the negligent handling of documents,12 an increased 

workload,13 and a failure to read the Citation and act upon it.14 

 Further, the Court finds with respect to the first Pioneer factor, the untimely filing of the 

NOC would prejudice the Secretary. In US Pagoda, Inc. the employer filed a notice of contest 

more than ten weeks late. US Pagoda, Inc., No. 10-2035, 2011 WL 651433, at *2 

(O.S.H.R.C.A.L.J. Jan. 13, 2011). In that case, the Commission held that the delay was a 

significant length of time, finding that it could “prejudice the Secretary and impact the judicial 

proceedings in this matter.” Id. Similarly, the length of time of the delay here would have an 

effect on the Secretary because Employment 2000 filed its NOC four months late. See Custom 

Copper & Slate, Ltd., No. 09-0022, 2009 WL 1504102 at *3 (O.S.H.R.C.A.L.J. Apr. 6, 2009) 

(finding a delay of three months would “prejudice the Secretary and have an impact on judicial 

proceedings”). 

In contrast, the Commission has been known to recognize that in many Rule 60(b) late 

filing cases, “it is a given that there is a lack of prejudice to the Secretary or to the interests of 

efficient judicial administration, combined with a lack of bad faith by the employer.” George 

Harms Constr. Co. v. Chao, 371 F.3d 156, 164 (3d Cir. 2004) (citing CalHar Constr., Inc., 18 

BNA OSHC at 2153 n.5). This is not the case here because the inspection took place over a year 

ago, and the impacts of this delay would significantly prejudice the Secretary, as the time 

 

11 This is routinely supported by appellate courts. See Sadowski v. Bombardier Ltd., 539 F.2d 615, 618 (7th Cir. 

1976) (finding Rule 60(b) cannot be invoked “to give relief to a party who has chosen a course of action which in 

retrospect appears unfortunate or where error or miscalculation is traceable really to a lack of care.”). 

12 Villa Marina Yacht Harbor, Inc., 19 BNA OSHC 2185 (No. 01-0830, 2003) (denying relief when the company 

mishandled their mail); La.-Pac. Corp., 15 BNA OSCHC at 2021 (holding “[e]ven during a management transition, 

a business must maintain orderly procedures for handling important documents”). 

13 United States v. One 1978 Piper Navajo PA-31 Aircraft, 748 F.2d 316, 319 (5th Cir. 1984) (holding that 

assertions of office workload are not sufficient to overcome a default judgment under Rule 60(b)). 14 A.W. Ross Inc., 19 BNA OSHC at 1149 (finding employer president’s failure to carefully read and act upon the 

Citation not excusable).
- 11 - 

between the Citation and the proceedings grow the evidence may seem to grow “stale.” 

Coughlan Constr. Co., 3 BNA OSHC 1636, 1638 (No. 5303, 1975) (consolidated) (“if evidence 

becomes stale, it may become more difficult for [the Secretary] to prove a violation”). 

On the basis of these factors and considerations, Employment 2000’s failure to file a 

timely NOC was not due to excusable neglect, and it would prejudice the Secretary. 

IV. Conclusion

The Court finds that Respondent has not established a basis for relief under Rule 60(b). 

Respondent has failed to proceed as provided by the requirements set forth in the Act and in the 

Citation, has not demonstrated that the delay in filing the NOC was excusable under the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure, and has prejudiced the Secretary by its untimely action. Pursuant to 

section 10(a) of the Act, the Citation and proposed penalty are deemed a final order of the 

Commission. 

V. Penalties

 The Secretary has proposed a total penalty of $25,200 for the Citation at issue. This 

breaks down to $6,300 for Citation 1, Item 1; $5,400 for Citation 1, Item 2a; $6,300 for Citation 

1, Item 3; $3,600 for Citation 1, Item 4; and $3,600 for Citation 1, Item 5. Section 17(j) of the 

Act requires the Commission to give due consideration to four criteria in assessing penalties: the 

size of the employer’s business, the gravity of the violation, the employer’s good faith, and its 

prior history of violations. Compass Envtl., Inc., 23 BNA OSHC 1132, 1137 (No. 06-1036, 

2010). Based on the record of this case, the Court finds that the Secretary properly considered 

the statutory factors in his penalty proposals. The court finds the total proposed penalty of 

$25,200, along with the classification of all five of the items as serious as alleged by the 

Secretary for the Citation item at issue, to be appropriate. 
- 12 - 

VI. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

 All finding of fact and conclusions of law relevant and necessary to a determination of 

the contested issues have been found and appear in the decision above. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a). 

VII. Order

WHEREFORE, the Court finds Respondent failed to file a timely NOC and no relief 

under Rule 60(b) is justified; and it is ORDERED that 

1) Complainant’s Motion to Dismiss Respondent’s Untimely Notice of Contest is 

GRANTED, 

2) Respondent’s Notice of Contest is dismissed in its entirety with prejudice as untimely 

filed, and 

3) all five of the Citation items and proposed penalties are AFFIRMED in all respects. 

SO ORDERED. 

 /s/ 

 The Honorable Dennis L. Phillips 

 U.S. OSHRC JUDGE

Date: July 26, 2016 

 Washington, D.C.