🧪 TEST MODE ACTIVE Use test card: 4242 4242 4242 4242
Ezel / Agency Decisions / 01-2066-alj
OSHRC ALJ decision Docket 01-2066, 01-2067 Decided September 13, 2002 Procedural Judge Michael H. Schoenfeld

Classic Hosiery, Inc.

Discovery violations resulted in default judgment

Apply this to your situation

This order from 2002 bound only the parties to this case; it isn't precedent. Ezel answers your situation under the current OSHA standards and Commission precedent, with citations.

Currency note: this decision dates from 2002
The OSHA standards may have been amended, penalty amounts have been adjusted, and later Commission or court decisions may have changed the analysis since then. Treat this page as historical context, not current compliance advice. Verify the current standard before relying on any specific rule, threshold, or penalty mentioned here.
Final order, not Commission precedent
This decision by an OSHRC Administrative Law Judge became a final order of the Commission because no Commissioner directed review (29 U.S.C. § 661(j)). It binds the parties but is not binding precedent in other cases. The full text below is from the official OSHRC release.
About this page: The plain-English summary and decision snapshot below were written by Ezel based on the official OSHRC release. The full text is the Commission's own document.
Read the official release (oshrc.gov)

Plain-English summary

Classic Hosiery did not respond to or attempt to comply with orders compelling discovery. The judge found that this disobedience constituted extreme misconduct. He granted the Secretary's motion for default judgment. The citations, failure-to-abate notification, and proposed penalties were affirmed. The decision does not identify the cited standards or penalty amounts.

Decision snapshot

  • Cited standard(s): The decision does not identify the substantive standards in the citations.
  • Outcome: Default judgment granted; citations, failure-to-abate notification, and proposed penalties affirmed.
  • Key point: Repeated refusal to comply with discovery orders can warrant dismissal and judgment by default.

Full text (OSHRC public release)

                      UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
          OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

SECRETARY OF LABOR,
Complainant,

           V.                                   OSHRC DOCKET NOS. 01-2066 and 01-2067

CLASSIC HOSIERY, INC.,
Respondent.

                               DECISION AND ORDER

         This Decision and Order supercedes the Order issued on July 31, 2002.
         Respondent*s failure to respond to, reply to, or in any way even attempt to comply with

orders compelling discovery constitutes egregious disdain for the Commission.
“[D]isobedience of court orders, in and of itself, constitutes extreme misconduct (and,
thus, warrants dismissal.).” Tower Ventures, Inc., v. City of Westfield, Et. AL,No. 02-1145,D.C. D.
Mass. (July 23, 2002), slip op. at, p.2. (Citation omitted.) The Secretary*s Motion to Enter Judgment
by Default is, for the reasons stated therein, GRANTED. Rule 52(e).
Accordingly,
1) The Citations issued to Respondent on October 11 and 12, 2001 and the Notification
of Failure to Abate Alleged Violation issued to Respondent on October 11, 2002, are AFFIRMED.
2) The Notifications of Proposed Penalty issued to Respondent on October 11 and 12,
2001 are AFFIRMED.

                                          /s/
                                     ______________________________
                                     Michael H. Schoenfeld
                                     Judge, OSHRC

Dated: August 12, 2002
Washington, D.C.

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read what one judge decided for one employer in 2002, and it binds only those parties. Ezel checks the current OSHA standards and Commission precedent and answers your specific situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the authority it relies on.