Industrial Union Dept., AFL-CIO v. American Petroleum Institute
(The Benzene Case) case brief summary
448 U.S. 607 (1980)
CASE FACTS
This litigation concerned a standard promulgated by the Secretary of Labor to regulate occupational exposure to benzene, a substance which had been shown to cause cancer at high exposure levels. At issue was whether such a showing was a sufficient basis for a standard that placed the most stringent limitation on exposure to benzene that was technologically and economically possible.
DISCUSSION
OUTCOME
The Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals remanding the petition for review to the Secretary of Labor for further proceedings. The Court held that petitioner had exceeded his standard-setting authority because he had not shown that the new benzene exposure limit was reasonably necessary or appropriate to provide safe or healthful employment.
Recommended Supplements for Administrative Law
Examples & Explanations: Administrative Law, Fourth Edition
Administrative Law and Process: In a Nutshell (Nutshell Series)
448 U.S. 607 (1980)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Petitioners, Secretary of Labor and an
industrial union department, requested certiorari to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in a case concerning a
standard promulgated by the Secretary of Labor to regulate
occupational exposure to benzene.CASE FACTS
This litigation concerned a standard promulgated by the Secretary of Labor to regulate occupational exposure to benzene, a substance which had been shown to cause cancer at high exposure levels. At issue was whether such a showing was a sufficient basis for a standard that placed the most stringent limitation on exposure to benzene that was technologically and economically possible.
DISCUSSION
- In its plurality decision, the Court held that it was clear that 29 U.S.C.S. § 652(8) required application to all permanent standards promulgated under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 and that it required the Secretary, before issuing any standard, to determine that it was reasonably necessary and appropriate to remedy a significant risk of material health impairment.
- Because the Secretary did not make the required threshold finding, the Court had no occasion to determine whether costs had to be weighed against benefits in an appropriate case.
- The record made it perfectly clear that the Secretary relied squarely on a special policy for carcinogens that imposed the burden on industry of proving the existence of a safe level of exposure and, in doing so, the Secretary exceeded his power.
OUTCOME
The Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals remanding the petition for review to the Secretary of Labor for further proceedings. The Court held that petitioner had exceeded his standard-setting authority because he had not shown that the new benzene exposure limit was reasonably necessary or appropriate to provide safe or healthful employment.
Recommended Supplements for Administrative Law
Examples & Explanations: Administrative Law, Fourth Edition
Administrative Law and Process: In a Nutshell (Nutshell Series)
No comments:
Post a Comment