Starting July 1, 2025, healthcare employers in Virginia will need to implement comprehensive workplace violence prevention plans or reporting systems. This new mandate requires employers to document, track, and analyze incidents of workplace violence, maintaining records for at least two years.

On March 24, 2025, Governor Glenn Youngkin signed into law House Bill 2269 and Senate Bill 162, which introduce these new reporting requirements. The legislation aims to enhance the safety of healthcare workers through measures such as continuing education, de-escalation training, risk identification, and violence prevention planning. These bills amend Section 31.1-127 of the Code of Virginia. Read more.

The California Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board (OSHSB) is considering the formation of a subcommittee to tackle challenges arising from the dismantling of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH).

During the OSHSB meeting on April 17, 2025, board members discussed reports of significant layoffs within NIOSH due to federal government budget cuts. These cuts would “eliminate 92% of the NIOSH’s workforce,” effectively leading to a shutdown of the agency. Earlier this month, NIOSH was hit with even more layoffs.

NIOSH conducts occupational safety and health research, recommends safety standards, and provides training and educational resources. The near elimination of NIOSH is expected to disrupt these essential services and create a gap, particularly affecting the certification of personal protective equipment (PPE). Federal regulations require the use of NIOSH-approved respirators and mandate certain comprehensive respiratory protection programs.

Without NIOSH certification, California faces challenges in protecting workers, especially in high-risk industries such as fire protection, healthcare, and mining. The absence of a certifying body could impede the development and sale of new respiratory protection technologies, which the OSHSB is concerned would pose significant risks to worker safety. The board expressed urgency regarding potential risks to firefighters’ health and safety, given recent wildfire and urban interface fires within the state.

The proposed subcommittee would explore NIOSH’s overall functions and consider alternatives, including potential legislation, partnerships with other states, and leveraging existing expertise in the field. The subcommittee would also investigate the current situation in Washington D.C., assess the impact on California workers, and evaluate actions the state or OSHSB can take to mitigate these issues. The OSHSB plans to continue these discussions with Cal/OSHA during its upcoming meeting in Redding.

If you have questions about the proposed subcommittee or the potential implications of these developments, contact a Jackson Lewis attorney to discuss.

For businesses operating across multiple states, the complexities of workplace safety compliance can be daunting, particularly when laws and standards may vary by location. This issue is especially impactful in the dynamic entertainment sector, where adherence to continuously changing safety regulations is essential. The responsibility becomes even more significant when the industry is in the metaphorical – and sometimes literal – spotlight. High-profile and industry-specific incidents, such as stunts or set-building gone awry, can not only lead to civil, criminal, and regulatory enforcement actions, but also a level of public attention not often seen in other sectors.

Federal regulations play a critical role, with agencies like OSHA creating the baseline foundation for safety and health standards. Under the OSH Act, all employers have an obligation to provide a workplace free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm, in addition to following specific standards. Many states, such as California, have adopted their own safety and health standards which match or exceed the federal requirements. Compliance pressures from state laws, such as those regulating heat illness prevention and wildfire smoke exposure, have become more prevalent and can significantly affect regions where cast and crew members work outdoors. Collective bargaining agreements with entertainment trade unions may further adjust the bar for employers.

In addition to navigating the patchwork of federal, state, and local regulations governing workplace safety and health, entertainment industry employers must also face the court of public opinion. Safety incidents not only have a negative effect on impacted employees, but also make headlines, potentially jeopardizing or even halting production. Given these pressures, selecting the right partner for workplace safety is as important as ever.

For these reasons, employers in the entertainment industry should evaluate their safety programs routinely and proactively address potential hazards. If you have questions about workplace safety and health requirements and how they might affect your organization, contact a Jackson Lewis attorney to discuss.

California employers must comply with the annual requirements of the workplace violence prevention law, SB 553, including reviewing their plans and providing effective training. The annual deadline for reviewing the plan and retraining employees is approaching, as the law went into effect on July 1, 2024. Employers can read more about the requirements in Jackson Lewis’ article.

Even as temperatures cool, Nevada’s Division of Industrial Relations (DIR) was working to adopt a heat illness regulation. On November 15, 2024, the State of Nevada adopted new regulations meant to protect employees from heat-related illness by placing new requirements on employers.

The new regulation, which took effect immediately upon approval, requires businesses with more than 10 employees to implement certain protective measures for indoor and outdoor heat. The regulation does not apply to employees working in climate-controlled environments. However, if the climate control system fails the employer, shall make a good faith effort to reestablish an effective climate control system as soon as practicable and must implement measures to address the potential hazards that could cause heat illness.

Here are the basics of what employers need to know now.

Job Hazard Analysis

Covered businesses are required to conduct a job hazard analysis for job classifications where the majority of employees have exposure to heat illness for more than 30 minutes of any 60 minutes, not including breaks.

Written Safety Program

For jobs where heat illness conditions exist, employers must create a written plan that includes:

  • Provisions of potable water
  • Provisions for a rest break when an employee exhibits symptoms of heat illness
  • Provisions for employees to cool down
  • Monitoring by a designated person of working conditions that could create heat illness
  • Identification and mitigation of work processes that generate additional heat or humidity
  • Training of employees in safety protocols
  • Procedure for responding to an emergency

Training

Covered employers are required to provide training to employees identified in the job hazard analysis on how to recognize hazards of heat illness and procedures to be followed to minimize the hazards of heat illness.

Designation of an Employee for Emergency Response Purposes

If, based on the job hazard analysis, the employer determines an employee may be exposed to heat illness, the employer must designate an employee to contact emergency services in the event an employee is experiencing the signs of heat illness.

The DIR has indicated it will be posting additional guidance for employers on its website in the coming weeks. If you have questions about compliance with Nevada’s new regulations or related issues, contact a Jackson Lewis attorney to discuss.

The Mine Safety and Health Administration (“MSHA”) released its long-anticipated silica rule on Tuesday, April 16, 2024.  (See the rule here) The rule is aimed at reducing miners’ exposure to respirable crystalline silica, otherwise known as silica or quartz dust. The final version of the rule is mostly consistent with the version MSHA proposed last year. It modifies the limits of exposure to crystalline silica and increases existing protections against other airborne particulates at mine sites. The rule will be published in the Federal Register on April 18, 2024, and will take effect in two months.

The rule requires both underground and surface mines to reduce the “permissible exposure limit” for breathable silica from 100 micrograms of silica per cubic meter of air (100 μg/m3) to 50 micrograms (50 μg/m3) during an 8-hour shift. Operators must also begin taking some protective measures where silica levels reach an “action level” of 25 micrograms (25 μg/m3). These changes make MSHA’s standard consistent with the standards set by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) in 2016 for factories, oil drilling sites, and construction projects.

The rule also requires metal and non-metal mine operators to establish medical surveillance programs similar to those already required for coal miners under existing standards. These programs provide periodic health examinations at no cost to miners.

Coal mine operators will have one year after the regulation’s effective date to comply with the rule. Metal and non-metal mine operators will have two years following the rule’s effective date to comply with the new requirements.

In a press release announcing the rule, MSHA emphasized the hazard, noting the inhalation of respirable crystalline silica “can cause serious lung and other diseases, such as silicosis, lung cancer, progressive massive fibrosis, chronic bronchitis and kidney disease.” MSHA also explained that exposure to “mixed coal mine dust containing respirable crystalline silica can lead to the development of black lung disease and progressive massive fibrosis.” Based on the evaluation of these hazards and the new controls, MSHA believes that the rule change will result in over 1,000 avoided deaths and almost 4,000 avoided cases of silica-related illnesses.

If you have any questions about this new rule, please contact the Jackson Lewis attorney with whom you regularly work or a member of the Workplace Safety and Health practice group.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has released a final rule to restore and expand Obama-era requirements for employers in dozens of designated industries that have worksites with at least 100 employees to submit their injury and illness forms electronically to the agency. The final rule becomes effective on January 1, 2024.

To read this article in its entirety, please click here.

With the recent passage of Senate Bill 592, the Oregon Legislature has dramatically augmented the range of civil penalties on employers who violate Oregon Safe Employment laws. Previously, Oregon law imposed only the minimum civil penalties prescribed under the federal OSHA. Effective May 24, 2023, the minimum penalty for a single serious violation has now nearly quadrupled, from $300 to $1,116, while the minimum penalty for repeated violations has skyrocketed from $200 to $11,162—a difference of more than 5,000 percent.

Severe increases are prescribed for violations resulting in employee fatalities and for failures to correct violations after citation. In cases involving penalties for repeated willful or serious violations, any penalty reduction must be conditioned upon the employer’s agreement to comply with “additional abatement measures as determined by the state agency.”

Small business employers will find it more difficult to obtain any downward adjustment on assessed penalties based on the employers’ size.

The new law substantially broadens the state agency’s investigatory powers and responsibilities. The Director of the Department of Consumer and Business Services is now authorized to conduct a “comprehensive inspection of any place of employment as deemed necessary by the department based upon the prior violation history of the place of employment regarding any state occupational safety or health law, regulation, standard, rule or order.” The director is now required to conduct a comprehensive inspection in cases involving work-related fatalities or whenever three or more willful or repeated violations occur within a one-year period. What constitutes a “comprehensive inspection” now falls within the professional judgment of the inspector from case to case.

The state agency must submit at least annually a report summarizing the total number and amount of penalties assessed, the total number of appeals of citations, violations and penalty assessment, and the total number inspections completed by the department. The first report is due no later than September 15, 2024.

Now is the time for Oregon employers to review their health and safety policies and procedures, identify potential risks–particularly risks associated with any past OSHA violations in the employer’s history, and develop plans to mitigate or eliminate those risks. Employers cited for violations now have greater incentives to appeal those citations and to remain fully informed about their rights and obligations under the Oregon Safe Employment Act.

If you have questions or need assistance with OSHA or safety compliance, inspections and citations, please reach out to the Jackson Lewis attorney with whom you often work, or any member of our Workplace Safety and Health Team.

SB 592, if enacted, would create significant changes to the Oregon Safe Employment Act including:

  • Allowing for “comprehensive inspection of any place of employment as deemed necessary by the department based upon the prior violation history of the place of employment regarding any state occupational safety or health law, regulation, standard, rule or order.” (Note: the bill currently does not include any time limit on the prior violation “look back” period.)
  • Broadening investigation parameters for work-related fatalities and repeat violations.
  • Substantially increasing civil penalties, with annual adjustments based on the CPI.
  • No longer allowing for penalty adjustments based on employer size unless employer agrees to comply with additional abatement measures.

The Bill has passed in the Senate and is progressing in the House. As currently drafted, SB 592 would be effective upon passage.

These proposed changes are significant for a number of reasons. First, allowing for comprehensive inspections means that OR OSHA could have wall-to-wall jurisdiction over an entire worksite, without the need to establish probable cause of a violation, based solely on what the inspector deems necessary. Second, without a defined look back period, an employer with any citation history, no matter how long ago, would be subject to a comprehensive inspection at the discretion of the OR OSHA. Finally, employers should be wary of agreeing to abatement measures simply to reduce the penalty as the cost of the abatement will often exceed the amount of the penalty.

Jackson Lewis attorneys will continue to provide updates on SB 592. If you have questions or need assistance with OSHA or safety compliance, inspections and citations, please reach out to the Jackson Lewis attorney with whom you often work, or any member of our Workplace Safety and Health Team.

Effective April 3, 2023, Oregon OSHA suspended its rules addressing the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency and Amended Work Clothing Rules via Oregon OSHA Administrative Order 1-2023.

The COVID-19 rules have been temporarily suspended as an interim measure until Oregon OSHA implements the permanent rulemaking process to fully repeal the rules, which it intends to do shortly. For those employees who still feel vulnerable to contracting COVID-19, the agency also made temporary amendments that include allowing employees the option to wear face coverings, and requiring employers to supply face coverings at no cost to employees when the employer requires their use.

These changes are in tandem with Oregon Health Authority’s announcement that masks are no longer required in healthcare settings, also effective April 3, 2023.