Court Opinion

ID: 9479015
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 07:06:01.153534+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:46:46.627099
License: Public Domain

GARWOOD, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
While I agree with much of the cogent majority opinion, I am unable to concur in its ultimate holding that the particular vio*1035lation in question is, as a matter of law, no more than de minimis.
The majority concludes that this is a situation where there is no significant difference between the protection provided by the employer and that afforded by technical compliance with the regulations, which required the presence of a warning line system. It seems to me that it was the employer’s burden to prove that the presence of a warning line would not have diminished the risk of falling off the roof and that, at most, the employer may have created a fact issue in this respect, which should have been, but was not, resolved by the administrative law judge.
The compliance officer’s testimony is consistent with the commonsense observation that a warning line has the potential advantage over monitors in that the monitors may from time to time be distracted or inattentive.1 I readily concede that the warning line would not enhance safety for those employees working outside of it. It is also true that the employees, whom the compliance officer testified she observed, were then working near the edge of the roof in areas which would have been outside of a properly placed warning line. But it seems obvious that the employees worked not only along the edge of the roof, but also on the portions of the roof which would have been protected by a proper warning line. There is no suggestion that the employer maintained a warning line until the work was completed up to those parts of the roof within six feet of the edge.
The relevant standard violated here was that provided in 29 C.F.R. § 1926.500(g)(1).2 Due to the size of the roof, the only available alternatives for compliance were those provided in paragraphs (i) and (ii). The motion-stopping safety system called for by paragraph (i) was not employed. The employer complied with the portion of paragraph (ii) calling for monitors for employees working between the warning line and the roof edge, but did not comply with the basic requirement of paragraph (ii) that there be a warning line system at least six feet from the roof edge. See 29 C.F.R. § 1926.500(g)(3). There is no showing that all the employees working on the roof on this occasion worked only within six feet of the roof edge. That is a matter on which the employer should have the burden to the extent that it relies on such a state of facts as a basis for claiming that the violation was no more than de minimis because compliance with the regulations would not have enhanced safety beyond that provided by the employer. We should thus make the wholly logical assumption that the employees were working both outside of and within the area where protection would have been afforded by the warning line.3 *1036In that situation, it is certainly not clear that, as a matter of law, the protection which would have been afforded by a warning line and at least one monitor — which the employer would have had to have anyway for employees working near the edge — was no safer than the two monitors and no warning line which the employer actually provided.
Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.

. As the last sentence of the preceding paragraph in the text reflects, I do not accept this testimony of the compliance officer as conclusive; but the majority determines that the converse was established as a matter of law, even though there was no direct testimony to the contrary and the matter was not addressed by the administrative law judge.

. This section of the regulations provides: “During the performance of built-up roofing work on low-pitched roofs with a ground to eave height greater than 16 feet (4.9 meters), employees engaged in such work shall be protected from falling from all unprotected sides and edges of the roof as follows:
"(i) By the use of a motion-stopping-safety system (MSS system); or
“(ii) By the use of a warning line system erected and maintained as provided in paragraph (g)(3) of this section and supplemented for employees working between the warning line and the roof edge by the use of either an MSS system or, where mechanical equipment is not being used or stored, by the use of a safety monitoring system; or
"(iii) By the use of a safety monitoring system on roofs fifty feet (15.25 meters) or less in width (see Appendix A), where mechanical equipment is not being used or stored.”

.So far as I am aware, the employer has never contended, here or below, that its employees were working only within six feet of the roofs edge on the occasion in question, and its description of how it conducted its operations plainly suggests the contrary. It also seems obvious that the citation, which alleged as a violation the absence of a warning line system (and motion-stopping safety system), was not in any way based on how close to the roofs edge the employees were working: under section 1926.500(g)(l)(ii) (note 2, supra), closeness to the edge, as such, can produce a violation only when there is neither a motion-stopping safety system nor a safety monitoring system, and here the citation does not allege the absence of a proper safety monitoring system (nor has any *1036one ever contended that such a system was lacking).