Case 20.2 Edwin Taylor Corp. v. U.S. Department of Labor United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, 2020 WL 2536993 (2020). Background and Facts Edwin Taylor Corporation was retained to construct five three-story condominiums. Paul Barros and Bronson Ostrander were superintendents of the worksite, and Jay Zimmerman managed them. David Patton, one of the owners of Edwin Taylor, regularly received photos and messages regarding the work. Under this supervisory authority, Edwin Taylor employees were responsible for enforcing safety protocols and correcting potential safety violations at the site. For block and framing work, Edwin Taylor subcontracted with Adelo & Fernanda Construction, Inc., which subcontracted with Francisco Sanchez Hernandez to assist with the framing. During construction, workers built the frames higher than six feet without guardrails. One of Hernandez's workers fell twenty- two feet through an unguarded opening and died. As a result, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) opened an investigation. After the incident, guardrails were installed in most areas of the worksite, but an OSHA officer still found a lack of fall protection one week later.areas of the worksite, but an OSHA officer Still found a lack of fall protection one week later. The Secretary of the U.S. Department of Labor cited Edwin Taylor for willful violations of OSHA safety regulations and assessed a penalty of $126,749. Edwin Taylor contested the citation to the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission. The Commission's administrative law judge (AL]) affirmed the citation but reduced the penalty to $101,399.20. Edwin Taylor appealed, asserting that there was insufficient evidence for the AL] to conclude that the builder had willfully violated the regulations. In the Words of the Court PER CURIAM [ By the Whole Court]: * * * In her order, the ALJ stated that "a willful violation is one committed with intentional, knowing or voluntary disregard for the requirement of the [Occupational Safety and Health] Act or with plain indifference to employee safety." Because the ALI's definition of willful conduct aligns with our own, we uphold it here. [Emphasis added.] Having determined that the ALJ applied the proper legal standard, we next consider whether substantial evidence supports her conclusions.* * * In making her decision, the ALJ relied on testimony from Edwin Taylor employees showing that they knew of the fall protection regulations required for greater than six-foot fall risks, yet disregarded that risk at its worksite. [The] evidence shows that Mr. Barros, Mr. Ostrander, Mr. Zimmerman, and Mr. Patton were aware of the risk posed by working at the condominium developments without fall protection. Those Edwin Taylor supervisors knew that workers would be working on second and third stories of the condominiums and that they would be exposed to floor openings. Notwithstanding this knowledge of the fall hazard and worker exposure above six feet on the second and third levels, Edwin Taylor supervisors did nothing to prevent an accidental fall beyond cursory discussions with Mr. Sanchez about the need for fall protection. Edwin Taylor did not instruct anyone at the worksite to install guardrails. Nor did it supply guardrail equipment to the worksite crew-even though the needed equipment was at the job site. * * * After a close review of the administrative record * * *, we agree that substantial evidence supports the [ALJ's] conclusion that Edwin Taylor committed * * * willful OSHA violations. Decision and Remedy The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the ALJ's classification of Edwin Taylor's violations as willful and the resulting penalty.l Discussion: We will discuss the ease summaries that are in the textbook (e.g., Case 20.], Simmons v. Smith from chapter 20}. As preparation for these discussions, you should read the ease excerpt, compare the topic to corresponding material in the text, and be prepared to answer basic questions about the case, such as: Who are the parties in this case? What went wrong why are they in court? What court is the opinion from is it a trial court or appellate court? What question did the court have to decide in this case? What facts did the court focus on in deciding the case? Your preparation is intended to make it possible for us to have discussion about the case. You do not need to master the topic covered by the ease. My expectation is that you be familiar enough with the material to be able to answer my questions as we work through the subject. If you are able to do this, you will have satised this part of the class participation requirement