Cesar Garcia

Plain-English summary

OSHA issued Cesar Garcia five serious citation items after inspecting a worksite in Wichita, Kansas, and proposed penalties totaling $15,214. Because Spanish was Garcia's primary language, the judge ordered subsequent filings translated into Spanish and arranged an interpreter for trial. Garcia did not file the required pretrial statement or appear at the scheduled trial, despite mailed notices and an hour-long delay to allow for a late arrival. The judge found a pattern of disregard for the proceeding, dismissed the notice of contest, and entered default judgment. The judge also found OSHA's offer of proof independently supported the five violations and assessed the proposed penalties in full.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standard(s): The public order does not identify the five specific standards.
• Outcome: The notice of contest was dismissed, all five serious citation items were affirmed, and $15,214 in penalties was assessed.
• Key point: Failure to comply with pretrial requirements and appear for a properly noticed trial can waive the right to a hearing and result in default judgment.

Full text (OSHRC public release)


Document

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

S ECRETARY OF LABOR ,

Complainan t,

v.

CESAR GARCIA ,

Respondent.

DOCKET NO.
   21-0555

Appearances: 1

Megan McGinnis , Esq.,
Elaine Smith, Esq.,
Office
of the Solicitor, U.S. Dep t .
of Labor,
Kansas City, Missouri

For Complainant

Before: Administrative Law Judge
Brian A. Duncan

DECISION AND ORDER

Procedural History

This
case
is before the
United States
Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (“Commission”) pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. §
651
et seq .
(“the Act”). On
March 3, 2021 , t he Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”)
conducted an inspection of Respondent’s worksite, located at
10614 & 10616 Conifer in Wichita, Kansas .
A s a result of that inspection, OSHA issued
a
Citation and Notification of Penalty
(“Citation”)
to Respondent
alleging
five
serious violations of the Act
and proposed total
penalties
of $ 15,214 .00 . Respondent timely contested
the Citation .

On August 11, 2021, Respondent filed a letter, pursuant to Commission Rule 8(c)(1), requesting to be exempted from mandatory electronic filing. On
September 22, 2021, t he Court granted Respondent’s request and instructed
that all filings be mailed to Respondent’s address of record. On October 29, 2021, during the Court’s first conference call with the parties, Respondent appeared but explained that Spanish was his primary language and requested an interpreter/translation for court proceedings . Respondent also provided the Court and Complainant with his new, preferred address of record.
Accordingly, pursuant to the Commissions Language Access Program, the Court ordered that all filings be translated into Spanish so that Respondent could fully and meaningfully participate in the case. All subsequent filings were filed and served in two forms – one in English and one in Spanish.

On November 9, 2021, the Court received notice of returned mail which had been sent to Respondent’s address of record.
Therefore, on December 14, 2021,
pursuant to Commission Rule 6,
the Court ordered Respondent
(in Spanish and English)
to
verify his current address and telephone number within two weeks.

The Court further
identified Respondent’s last notified address of record, and stated “if Respondent fails to submit any corrections or changes to its address of record by that date, the Court and the parties will continue to use the address above for service on Respondent. If such filings continue to be returned as non-deliverable, Respondent will be deemed to have waived service and notice pursuant to Commission Rule 6.” Respondent did not reply to the
Order , nor did Respondent ever file notice of a different address of record. Neither the December 14 th
Order,
nor any subsequent filings were returned by the U.S. Postal Service.

On December
17, 2021, the parties jointly filed their
Joint Recommendations for Simplified Proceedings . On January 4, 2022, the Court issued a
Notice of Trial in Simplified Proceedings
setting the trial for June 16-17, 2022 in Wichita, Kansas. On May 17, 2022, the Court issued a
Notice of Trial Location
i dentifying
the specific courthouse address for the trial. On June 1, 2022, Complaint filed a
Pre-Trial Statement . Respondent failed to file a
Pre-Trial Statement .

The trial commenced , as noticed,
in
Wichita, Kansas on June 16, 2022 . 2
Complainant appeared, ready to proceed. However,
Respondent failed to appear.
T he Court
delay ed the trial for approximately one
hour to allow for the possibility of Respondent’s late arrival.
(Tr.
15). Th e Court
then began the trial and
heard
Complainant’s offer of proof on the evidence that would have been presented at trial if Respondent had appeared. (Tr. 17-28). At the close of Complainant’s
summary of evidence ,
Complainant moved for
Default Judgment
against Respondent based on his failure to appear at trial, pursuant to Commission Rule 64. (Tr. 28). T he Court
granted Complainant’s
Motion for Default Judgment
(Tr. 29-30).

Jurisdiction

The
Court finds
that the Commission has j urisdiction
over this proceeding
pursu ant to Section 10(c) of the Act and that , at all times relevant to this proceeding,
Respondent was
an employer
engaged in a business
and industry
affecting
interstate commerce
within the meaning of Sections 3(3) and 3(5) of the Act , 29 U.S.C. § 652(5) .

Slingluff v. OSHRC , 425 F.3d 861 (10 th
Cir. 2005) .

Discussion

In addition to failing to appear at trial,
Respondent failed to
file a
Pre-Trial Statement
as
required by the Court’s
January 4, 2022
Notice of Trial
in Simplfied Proceedings. According to Commission Rule 64, “ The failure of a party to appear in person or by a duly authorized representative at the hearing constitutes a waiver of the right to a hearing…A failure of Respondent to appear is deemed an admission of the facts alleged and consent to the relief sought in the
Complaint (or, in Simplified Proceedings, the citation and notification of penalty). The Judge may default the non-appearing party without further proceedings or notice.”

A ccording to the Commission, dismissal is
also
an appropriate sanction if
the record shows contumacious conduct by the noncomplying party, prejudice to the opposing party, or a pattern of disregard for Commission proceedings.”
Amsco, Inc. , 2003 WL 25548066 (O.S.H.R.C.).
Sealtite Corporation , 15 BNA OSHC 1130 (No. 88-1431, 1991) (contumacious conduct established where party engaged in a “consistent pattern” of failure to respond to judge’s orders). Respondent’s repeated failure to comply with both the Commission’s
and the undersigned ’s rules, deadlines, and orders constitute a pattern of
contumacious conduct , prejudice to Complainant, and a disregard for the statutory authority of this Court and the Commission. Respondent’s failure to participate in this proceeding may also illustrate Respondent’s
intent ion
to abandon its
contest of the violations proposed in this
case. Accordingly, the Court find s that the sanction of dismissal of Respondent’s
Notice of Contest , and entry of
Default Judgment
against Respondent
is appropriate.

As an alternative to the foregoing
sanction , the Court d irected Complainant at trial to
present summary
evidence in support of the violations alleged in this case. After reviewing the record and applying the cited standard s
to the facts presented at trial, the Court finds that Complainant
proved
its
prima facie
case with respect to each of the alleged violations
and proposed penalties .
Ormet Corp. , 14 BNA OSHC 2134 (No. 85-0531, 1991)
(setting forth elements of
prima facie
violation).
With respect to each citation item, Complainant clearly established that the cited standards applied to the condition s,
that the terms of the standards were vi olated, that
Respondent had
knowledge of the conditions , that Respondent’s employees were
exposed to the
violative conditions , and that the violations were properly characterized as serious. (Tr. 17-28 ; Exs. C-1 through C-12 ) . T he Court further finds that Complainant’s penalty assessments for each violation
were appropriate.
J.A. Jones Construction Co. ,
15 BNA OSHC 2201 (No. 87-2059, 1993) ;
Valdak Corp ., 17 BNA OSHC
1135
(No. 93-0239, 1995) .

Order

Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclus i ons of Law, it is ORDERED
t hat :

1. Respondent’s
   Notice of Contest
   is VACATED
   pursuant to Commission Rule 64;

2. Citat ion
   1, Item 1
   is
   hereby AFFIRMED as a
   serious
   violation of the Act, and a penalty of $ 3,511.00
   is ASSESSED ;

3. Citation 1, Item
   2
   is hereby AFFIRMED as a serious violation of the Act, and a p enalty of $ 3,511.00
   is ASSESSED;

4. Citation 1 , Item 3
   is hereby AFFIRMED as a serious violation of the Act, and a penalty of $ 3,511.00
   is ASSESSED;

5. Citation
   1, Item 4 a
   is hereby AFFIRMED as a
   serious
   violation of the Act, and a penalty of $ 4,096 .00 is ASSESSED;
   and

6. Citation
   1, Item
   4b
   is hereby AFFIRMED as a
   serious
   violation of the Act, and a penalty of $ 0 .00 is ASSESSED .

/s/
Brian A. Duncan

Date:
August 2,
2022      
Judge Brian A. Duncan

Denver, Colorado          U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission

"

1 . As will be discussed further, Respondent failed to appear for trial.

2. The Court notes that it also procured the attendance of a Spanish interpreter
   for Respondent
   at trial.