Unsafe Work Sites May Result in Criminal Charges : High Court Ruling Seen as Giving States Green Light to Proceed With Prosecutions

The Supreme Court cleared the way Monday for state prosecutors to criminally charge employers for exposing their workers to dangerous chemicals and other hazards, even though the conditions do not violate federal standards.

Five owners and managers of a Chicago wire coating plant had contended that their compliance with the federal workplace standards set by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration prevented their being charged with a crime under state law.

But the Illinois state supreme court disagreed, and so did the U.S. Supreme Court. Without dissent or comment, the justices dismissed their appeal Monday (Asta vs. Illinois, 88-1783).

Because the high court simply denied an appeal, the action sets no binding precedent on lower courts. However, prosecutors are likely to see the action as giving them a green light to proceed with criminal complaints.

As federal regulation has lagged in recent years, aggressive prosecutors in several states have charged employers with crimes such as “criminal negligence” or “aggravated battery” against their employees.

The decision also shows the willingness of the conservative Rehnquist Court--under Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist--to uphold state actions, even at the expense of business. Though the court’s last term was dominated by conservative rulings, big business nevertheless regularly found itself on the losing end in major cases.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Assn. of Manufacturers, among other business groups, strongly urged the justices to block the criminal prosecutions of the owners of the Chicago Magnet Wire Corp. They argued that such state prosecutions were preempted by the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. This federal law was intended to create a single, national standard for workplace safety, they said, not different standards in each state.

Allowing state prosecutions against employers “leaves the determination of safety standards to a case by case, jury by jury, county by county determination,” the chamber said in its brief to the high court. “No employers will know, in advance, what is expected in the way of safety standards. The hapless employer will be left to discover that only after the jury has found the employer guilty or not guilty of a serious crime.”

Business lawyers also hinted in their briefs that the Illinois prosecution was motivated in part by Democratic politicians seeking publicity and labor votes. The charges were first brought by the Cook County state’s attorney, Richard J. Daley, who has since been elected mayor of Chicago.

In defense of the prosecution, Illinois state attorneys argued that conditions at the Chicago plant were extremely hazardous and entirely deserving of criminal sanctions. Employees were forced to work without masks in a plant filled with smoke and chemical fumes, and some had to walk on catwalks where temperatures reached 250 degrees, they said.

“Stripped of its legalism, (the factory owners) are seeking immunity for employers as a class, no matter how egregious, no matter how repugnant their abuse of their employees,” the Illinois attorneys said. “How tragically ironic if an act, the primary purpose of which is the benefit of American workers, was twisted into a shield for unscrupulous and uncaring companies.”

By dismissing the appeal, the high court cleared the way for a trial of the five Chicago businessmen.

Meanwhile, in another business case, the court agreed to decide whether migrant farm workers can sue their employers in federal court for on-the-job injuries. The 10 Florida farm workers in this case received state workers’ compensation payments, but then sued for damages under the federal Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Workers Protection Act.

The U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta upheld the suit. But the fruit company that employed them argues that only the state benefits are available to the workers (Adams Fruit Co. vs Barrett, 88-2035).