1. Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970
2. OSHA has had a stormy past. Have the students conduct some outside research on the reasons behind
3. The Secretary of Labor sets standards under OSHA’s authority
CASE BRIEF:SeaWorld of Florida, LLC v. Perez
748 F. 3d 1202 (D.C. Cir. 2014)
FACTS: On February 24, 2010, a performance was still in progress when Tilikum, a 32 year old
killer whale, seized SeaWorld trainer Dawn Brancheau and pulled her off her platform into the pool
causing her death. The Secretary of Labor issued citations alleging two instances of “willful”
violations of the general duty clause for exposing trainers to recognized hazards of drowning or
injury when working with killer whales during performances. The Secretary of Labor set forth
abatement procedures prohibiting trainers from working with whales unless the trainers are
protected through the use of physical barriers or the use of decking systems. The Secretary
proposed a penalty of $70,000. SeaWorld appealed, contending its training adequately controlled
the risk. And, it asserted that trainers formally accept and control their own exposure to risks like
the risks inherent in much of the sport and entertainment industries.
ISSUE: Did SeaWorld expose its employees to conditions that would constitute a “recognized
hazard” under OSHA?
REASONING: The evidence showed that the killer whales pose a hazard despite safety measures taken by
SeaWorld. The court refused to recognize assumption of the risk as a defense.
DISCUSSION POINTS: Thinking Things Through
Taking Chances or Shortcuts in Violation of OSHA Standards Is Bad Management
OSHA’s power is another example of Congress’ use of the commerce clause. Since most everything manufactured
today in the U.S. has some interstate implication, Congress is entitled to regulate any aspect of the trade between the
states. As the enacting statute states, OSHA is designed to “preserve the country’s human resources.” Leaving the
human aspect aside, a uniform national law regulating safety in the workplace serves to prevent one state from
granting an economic advantage to its manufacturers by having weak safety laws. These weak safety laws confer a
benefit to employers whose price is ultimately paid by the maimed and killed workers of that state.
In the Whirlpool v. Marshall case, if the only work scheduled and available for the two employees on the shift in
question was that of maintenance work on the screens, and the employees refused this work, the employer would not
appear to have discriminated against the employees by sending them home. This would be especially so if the
company could show a practice of sending employees home when no work existed. However, the employees may be
entitled to a minimum number of hours of pay under the collective bargaining agreement.
If there was sufficient work available for the two men to occupy their time for their regular shift, other than the
disputed work, it would appear that the employer discriminated against the two men by sending them home without