Opinion ID: 381346
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Harm to other parties.

Text: 32 The obviously interested parties here are the defendant Department of Labor, and the agricultural employers, or the growers, who are advantaged by the availability of waivers under the Department's regulation that lists approved pesticides. A preliminary injunction enjoining application of that list would permit waiver only on satisfaction of the statutory requirement of objective data reviewed by the Department and provided by applicant employers establishing that employment conditions and pesticide exposure would not adversely affect 10 and 11 year olds. 45 A foreseeable result is that fewer waivers would be granted. The proof process would be more difficult, and the case-by-case evaluation more time-consuming, than would simple application of the list of approved pesticides here under challenge. 46 33 Growers seeking waivers thus would suffer from a diminished labor pool and would either be short on labor or have to pay more to attract employees. We assume that this result would indeed be burdensome, because under the statutory and regulatory schemes, waiver applications can be approved only based on objective data that the industry would suffer severe economic disruption without the child employees available through a waiver. 47 We note also, however, that the industry obviously has survived without any 10- and 11-year-old hand harvesters during the extended period preceding the passage of the statutory waiver provision in 1977. 48 With the restricted availability of waivers even subsequent to 1977, 49 we must conclude that the industry would not be significantly harmed if the Secretary is enjoined from approving applications supported by statements of pesticides used. 34 The other interested party possibly harmed by a preliminary injunction is the defendant Department of Labor. The harm to it would be the suspension of its list of approved pesticides, and the pressure to respond to demands by both growers and child protection groups. These results do not constitute substantial harm for the purpose of delaying injunctive relief. Indeed, these consequences are no different from the Department's burdens under the statutory scheme. The Department could still seek sufficient information to support reliable safety standards, and the Department could also initiate notice and comment rulemaking for that same purpose. Especially when compared with the irreparable harm from children's exposure to known dangers, the foreseeable consequences to the Department of Labor and to growers are insignificant.