On February 27, 2013, the Supreme Court of the United States in
Gabelli v. SEC unanimously disapproved of the so-called
discovery rule for postponing the running of a statute of
limitations when a federal government agency seeks a civil
penalty. The Court held that the limitations period begins to
run once a violation occurs, and is not postponed until the agency
discovers or reasonably should have discovered the violation.
"Supreme Court Rules SEC Has Five Years to Seek
Penalties" for more information.)
Although the Gabelli decision did not directly deal
with the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act, it effectively
eliminates what might have remained of the OSH Review
Commission's 1993 Johnson Controls decision, which had
endorsed the use of a discovery rule in Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA) recordkeeping cases.
Together with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit's decision in AKM LLC dba Volks
Constructors v. Secretary of Labor, 675 F.3d 752 (D.C. Cir.
2012), Gabelli ends any possibility of OSHA extending the
OSH Act's limitations period. In Volks (in which
McDermott represented the employer), the D.C. Circuit disapproved
of OSHA's continuing violation theory, under which the
limitations period does not begin to run until the violation is
corrected. Although the D.C. Circuit reserved in a footnote
whether OSHA might use a discovery rule to extend the limitations
period, the Gabelli decision eliminates that
As a result, employers should not accept an OSHA citation
alleging violations more than six months old.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.
When it comes to California non-competes, you can never get enough clarity. And when that clarity comes from a Delaware Chancery Court, it adds a utility element that our corporate brethren appreciate.
The plaintiff claimed that Omnicare, a health care company, made material misstatements and omissions by affirming legal compliance even though internal audits revealed problems with its billing practices.
The decision earlier this month in Cyprus Amax Minerals v. TCI Pacific Communications is a useful reminder that corporate form exists for a reason and that parent corporations who ignore corporate niceties do so at their peril.