Romancing the Stone, Inc.

Plain-English summary

OSHA issued Romancing the Stone three failure-to-abate citations involving hearing conservation and crystalline-silica protections, with proposed penalties totaling $122,364. The company filed a notice of contest but did not answer the Secretary's complaint. It also did not respond to a show-cause order or later emails explaining how to answer and warning that default would result. The judge found a pattern of disregard for the proceedings, dismissed the contest, and affirmed the citations without a hearing on their merits. The full $122,364 penalty was assessed.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standard(s): 29 C.F.R. §§ 1910.95(c)(1), 1910.1053(d)(3)(i), 1910.1053(j)(3)(i)
• Outcome: The company was found in default, its contest was dismissed, and $122,364 in penalties was assessed.
• Key point: Filing a contest does not preserve a case when the employer repeatedly fails to answer the complaint or respond to Commission orders.

Full text (OSHRC public release)


Document

United States of America

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

1120 20th Street, N.W., Ninth Floor

Washington, DC 20036-3457

SECRETARY OF LABOR,

Complainant,

v.

OSHRC DOCKET NO.

2 3 -0 243

ROMANCING THE STONE, INC .

Respondent.

ORDER OF D ISMISSAL
FOR
LATE NOTICE OF CONTEST

AND
FAILURE TO FILE AN ANSWER

Procedural History

This matter is before the
United States
Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (“Commission”) and the undersigned based on Respondent’s filing of a Notice of Contest on February 8, 2023.

O n
August 1 and November 14, 2022,
the United States Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”)
inspected a
worksite in
Coventry, Rhode Island under inspection number 1611694.

As a result of those inspections, o n
January 5, 2023 ,
OSHA
issued
two
Citation s
and Notification s
of Penalty (“Citation s ”) to
Romancing the Stone, Inc.
(“Respondent”) for alleged violations of the Occupational Safety and Health Act , 29 U.S.C. §§ 651, et seq
(“OSH Act”) . The Citation s
alleged
three
failure-to-abate
violations of
OSHA’s
general industry
safety standards. 1
The Citation s
pro pose d
a total
penalty of
$ 122,364 .

The Citation
were
mailed to
Respondent
at
140 Centre of New England Boulevard, Coventry, Rhode Island, 02816. On February 8, 2023, an individual named Keyur Patel, whose relationship to Respondent is not clear from the instant record, filed a Notice of Contest with OSHA challenging the Citations on behalf of Respondent. In his email Notice of Contest, Mr. Patel indicated that an individual named Mike Rego, whose relationship to Respondent is also not clear from the instant record, would “be handling this from our side.” The Secretary has not argued that the Notice of Contest was untimely.

Thereafter, on February 16, 2023, two individuals registered with
the
Commission’s e-filing system on behalf of Respondent: 1) Mr. Patel, with the email address
[email protected] ; and 2) Mr. Rego, with the email address
[email protected] .

Both individuals are currently listed as Active Contacts for Respondent in the Commission’s e-filing system. 2

Also on February 16, 2023,
a fter
having
receiv ed
the
Notice of Contest , t he Commission mailed
a
Notice of Docketing and Instructions to Employer
(“Notice of Docketing”)
to Respondent’s
address in
Coventry, Rhode Island . The Notice of Docketing included a guide to the Commission’s procedures
and a
postcard that was to be returned to the Commission to verify
Respondent had complied with the employee posting requirements of Commission Rule 7 for the Citation and Notice of Contest. See
29 C.F.R. §   2200.7. To date, this postcard has not been returned to the Commission.

On
February 24, 2023 , the Secretary filed
a Motion to Extend Time to File Complaint . In this motion, the Secretary’s representative
indicated that he “attempted to contact the Respondent regarding this
motion, but
was not successful.”
The undersigned granted the Secretary’s motion on
March 9, 2023 . On April 20, 2023, the Secretary filed a Motion to Further Extend Time to File a Complaint. In this motion, the Secretary’s representative indicated that Respondent consented to the motion. The undersigned granted the Secretary’s second motion to extend on
April 24, 2023.

Thereafter ,
on
June 7, 2023 ,
t he
Secretary filed his
C omplain t.

The Certificate of Service for the Complaint indicates it was filed in the Commission’s
e -filing system and
was
also
served
directly
on
both Mr. Patel and Mr. Rego at their email addresses used to register with the Commission’s e-filing system.
Responden t
was required to
respond to the
C omplaint
within 21 days
of service .

29 C.F.R. §   2200.34( b)(1). To
date, Respondent has not filed an Answer or otherwise responded to the Complaint.

On
July 11, 20 2 3,
the undersigned issued a n
Order
to
Show Cause Why Notice of Contest Should Not Be Dismissed (“Show Cause Order”) for failure to file an Answer. The
Show Cause Order directed Respondent to show cause ,
on or before
July 25, 2023 , as to why it should not be declared in default for not filing an Answer to the Complaint. The Show Cause Order explain ed
that
if there was no response ,
all
the alleged violations set out in the Citation s
would
be affirmed and the proposed penalties
would be
assessed without a hearing. The Show Cause Order was served via e-filing on both Mr. Patel and Mr. Rego. See
note
,
supra.

Out of
an abundance of caution
because Respondent is
presumably
self-represented, a
member of the undersigned’s staff attempted to contact both Mr. Rego and Mr. Patel at their respective email addresses. Copies of these emails are attached to this
O rder as Exhibit s
A
and B . In the detailed emails, sent on August 24
and
28, 2023, the undersigned’s staff member explained that the deadline set forth in the Show Cause Order had since passed but Respondent had still not filed a response or an Answer to the Complaint.

The email s
went on to state “you
MUST
file an Answer in this matter for your case to go forward. If you do not file an Answer in this matter, you are at risk of being placed in default and having the proposed penalty of
$122,364 imposed. ” ( emphasis
in original). The email s
contained the full text of Commission Rule 34(b), regarding the filing of answers. Attached to the emails was a sample answer
taken from the Commission’s website. These email s
were not returned as undeliverable to the undersigned’s staff member who sent them. 3
No one has replied to either email on behalf of Respondent.

To date, Respondent has not filed a response to the Show Cause
Order,
nor has it
filed an Answer to the Secretary’s Complaint.

Analysis

A
Commission
judge has very broad discretion in imposing sanctions for noncompliance with the judge’s orders or the Commission’s Rules of Procedure. See
Sealtite
Corp ., 15 BNA OSHC 1130, 1134 (No. 88-1431, 1991). However, t he Commission has held that dismissal is too harsh a sanction for failure to comply with certain prehearing orders unless the record shows contumacious conduct by the noncomplying party, prejudice to the opposing party, or a pattern of
disregard for Commission proceedings. See Architectural Glass & Metal Co. , 19 BNA OSHC 1546, 1547 (No. 00-0389, 2001).

The undersigned finds the conduct of
Respondent
to be contumacious
and demonstrative of a pattern of disregard for these proceedings .
Two individuals received the Show Cause Order on behalf of Respondent when it was filed in the Commission’s e-filing system. See
note
,
supra. However, neither
r epresentative has filed a reply to the Show Cause Order or filed an Answer. Moreover, neither representative responded to the detailed emails sent to them following the lapse of the Show Cause Order’s deadline, emails which contained information on filing an Answer and specifically stated that failure to respond to the Show Cause Order or file an Answer would result in the dismissal of the Notice of Contest and imposition of the penalties proposed in the Citations. 4
See
Ex s . A
& B . Nearly six weeks have
passed since the deadline in the Show Cause Order, and yet Respondent has not filed a response, has provided no excuse for its failure to do so, and has still not filed an Answer to the Secretary’s Complaint, which was filed
nearly three months ago.

Based on the foregoing considerations, t he undersigned
fin ds
dismissal of
Respondent’s
Notice of Contest is warranted .

See
Ark. Abatement Servs., Inc. , 17 BNA OSHC 1163, 1164-65 (No. 94-2210, 1995) (“[W] here a party ’ s default indicates disrespect for, or indifference to, Commission proceedings, the party ’ s claims properly are dismissed.”);
Sealtite
Corp.,  15 BNA
1130 , 1134
(88-1431, 1991) (contumacious conduct established where party engaged in a “consistent pattern” of failure to respond to judge ’ s orders).

O RDER

Based on the foregoing ,
Respondent is
found to be in DEFAULT, its
N otice of
C ontest is DISMISSED, and the Citation issued to Respondent on
January 5, 2023 ,
as a result of
OSHA
inspection number
1 611694
is
AFFIRMED in
its
entirety and
$ 122,364
in penalties are
ASSESSED.

SO,
ORDERED.

__ /s/Covette Rooney ______

Covette Rooney

Chief Judge, OSHRC

Dated:
September
21 , 2023

Washington, D.C.

"

1
Although it appears additional violations were at some point alleged against Respondent, in the Citations filed with the Commission, only Citation 1, Item 2 and Citation 2, Items 1a and 1c were included with the filing. Citation 1, Item 2 alleges a failure to abate a serious violation of 29 C.F.R.
§
1910.95(c)(1) for
failing to administer an effective hearing conservation program; Citation 2, Item 1a alleges a failure to abate a serious violation of 29 C.F.R. § 1910.1053(d)(3)(i) for failure to perform initial monitoring of crystalline quartz; and Citation 2, Item 1c alleges a failure to abate a serious violation of 29 C.F.R. § 1910.1053(j)(3)(i) for failure to ensure employee knowledge of protections from crystalline silica.

2
Anyone listed as an “Active Contact”
in the Commission’s e-filing system
automatically receives an email notification whenever a new document is
electronically
filed
for
the
case. See
Intro .
to OSHRC E-Filing
at 8, Occupational Safety & Health Review Comm’n,
https://www.oshrc.gov/assets/1/6/supplemental_user_training_guide1.pdf
(May 2020);
Occupational Safety & Health Review Comm’n E-File Sys. Elec. Case Filing –
Pol’y
& Proc. Guide
at 12, Occupational Safety & Health Review Comm’n,
https://www.oshrc.gov/assets/1/6/Commission_E-File_System_Guide_-_FINAL_2-21.pdf
(June 2019).

3
As can be seen in Exhibit A, the original email sent on August 24,
2023
was intended for
both Mr. Patel and Mr. Rego. However, due to a typographical error in Mr. Patel’s email address, the email intended for Mr. Patel was originally returned as undeliverable. Once that typographical error was fixed on August 28, 2023,
however,
the email to Mr. Patel was not returned as undeliverable.

4
Since neither email was returned as undeliverable (once properly addressed), delivery of these emails is
presumed. See, e.g. ,
TV Ears, Inc. v.
Joyshiya
Dev. Ltd. , No. 3:20-CV-01708-WQH-BGS, 2021 WL 165013, at 3-4 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 19, 2021) (finding notice was sufficient where pleadings were sent to email addresses and were not “bounced back” or returned as undeliverable);
Viahart , LLC v. Does 1-73 , No. 6:18-CV-604-RWS-KNM, 2020 WL 10692890, at 4 (E.D. Tex. June 17, 2020) (“ Federal Courts have presumed delivery of an email if it is not returned undeliverable and the email address is used by the Defendant in conducting business.” (citing cases));
see also
Shu Chung Lee v. Dir., Div. of
Tax’n , No. 007387-2017, 2017 WL 2544295, at 2 (N.J. Tax Ct. June 8, 2017) (State tax agency was “ under no obligation to ensure plaintiff read his emails, or to re-send an application especially when there is no notice or indication that its initial emails were undeliverable.”);
Alexander v. State , No. 04-15-00545-CR, 2016 WL 805494, at 1 (Tex. App. Mar. 2, 2016) (dismissing appeal where the appellant
failed to appear for an ordered hearing
and failed to respond to the court’s email which “was not returned as  undeliverable”).