Skip to main content

Ohio Cast Products, Inc. v. The Occupational Safety & Health Review Commission and Alexis M. Herman, Secretary of Labor

6th CircuitApril 13, 2001No. 99-4409, 99-4398Cited 9 times
Defendant WinOhio Cast Products, Inc.$8,000 at issue
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Wellford, Siler, Batchelder
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Outcome

The Sixth Circuit affirmed OSHRC's decision upholding OSHA's citations against Ohio Cast Products for crystalline quartz silica overexposure, finding the Secretary's exposure calculation method reasonable and Ohio Cast had fair notice of the enforcement method.

What This Ruling Means

**Ohio Cast Products v. OSHA Review Commission (2001)** This case involved a workplace safety dispute at Ohio Cast Products, a manufacturing company. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) cited the company for exposing workers to dangerous levels of crystalline quartz silica, a substance that can cause serious lung diseases when inhaled. Ohio Cast Products challenged these citations, arguing that OSHA's method for measuring worker exposure was unfair and that the company didn't have adequate warning about how violations would be enforced. The court sided with OSHA and upheld the safety citations against Ohio Cast Products. The judges found that OSHA's way of calculating worker exposure to the harmful silica dust was reasonable and appropriate. They also determined that the company had been given fair notice about how these safety rules would be enforced, so Ohio Cast couldn't claim ignorance. **What this means for workers:** This ruling reinforces that employers must protect workers from hazardous substances like silica dust, which is common in construction, manufacturing, and other industries. It confirms that OSHA can use established scientific methods to measure workplace dangers and hold companies accountable when they fail to keep workers safe from lung-damaging exposures.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.