Court Opinion

ID: 8931830
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-27 07:08:44.701907+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:09:31.917960
License: Public Domain

JAMES McGIRR KELLY, District Judge,
concurring and dissenting:
Although I concur with the majority’s disposition of most of the issues in this case, I am unable to agree with the majority’s position that restricting access to trade secret information to only health care professionals is inconsistent with the requirements of Section 6(b)(5) of the OSH Act, 29 U.S.C. § 655(b)(5), and is not supported by substantial evidence in the record.
Section 6(b)(5) states in pertinent part:
(5) The Secretary, in promulgating standards dealing with toxic materials or harmful physical agents under this subsection, shall set the standard which most adequately assures, to the extent feasible, on the basis of the best available evidence, that no employee will suffer material impairment of health or functional capacity even if such employee has regular exposure to the hazard dealt with by such standard for the period of his working life____
29 U.S.C. § 655(b)(5) (emphasis added).
There is no meaningful reason why every employee or his or her agent should be granted the right to obtain trade secret information. The majority, in overruling the Secretary’s restriction which requires that trade secret information only be given to health care professionals, opens the door allowing every person in the work place the right to obtain trade secret information if the person signs a confidentiality statement. The majority holds that restricting trade secret information to the health care profession does not meet the standard that “most adequately assures, to the extent feasible, on the basis of the best available evidence, that no employee will suffer material impairment of health ...” 29 U.S.C. § 655(b)(5). I am not in accord with the majority’s position which rejected the Secretary’s viewpoint, which is that the health care professions can most adequately and professionally advise workers who may be exposed to hazardous chemicals. I see little, if any, benefit to allow any worker or his agent to obtain such confidential information. Moreover, I find that Section 15 of OSH Act, 29 U.S.C. § 664 is a guidepost to caution the Secretary not only when he or she seeks confidential information for any proceeding under the- OSH Act, but also when he or she enacts standards to effectuate the intentions of Congress.
Indeed, Congress has made the Secretary a quasifiduciary for owners of trade secrets in that the Secretary, in exercising his or her powers, must be mindful of the interests the possessors of trade secrets have.
Accordingly, I respectfully dissent on this issue. In all other respects I concur with the majority opinion.