Federal Appellate Court Reminds Employers That Fourth Amendment Standards Must Support Agency Inspections


By:  Julia Turner Baumhart, Kienbaum Opperwall Hardy & Pelton, P.L.C.


Federal Appellate Court Reminds Employers That Fourth Amendment Standards Must Support Agency Inspections


            Employers routinely encounter demands from the alphabet soup of Department of Labor sub-agencies:  OSHA, OFCCP, OWCP, W & H (including FLSA and FMLA variations), among others.  Not always as obvious or recognizable, however, are agency attempts to overreach in their demands.  This is often found in the case of on-site inspections or audits.

            Recently, an Eleventh Circuit federal appellate panel reminded employers that they may be overlooking a basic fundamental right.  Simply because a DOL inspector shows up after a workplace accident or to audit an employee complaint does not entitle the agency to unfettered access to the employer’s premises.  Specifically, in United States v. Mar-Jac Poultry, Inc., the court reminded employers of their Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches.

            The Mar-Jac case arose out of an electrical injury at a poultry processing plant in Georgia.  As required by law, Mar-Jac reported the electrical accident to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”), the following day.  Several days later, an OSHA inspection team arrived and demanded access, not only to the alleged hazards involved in the accident, but to the entire facility.  Mar-Jac refused access except to the accident site and any tools involved in the accident, but did provide access to certain paperwork including its “OSHA 300 logs,” in which it recorded work-related illness and injuries.  Based on this limited access, OSHA found nine potential OSHA violations, only three of which related to the accident.  The remaining six citations involved areas allegedly common to the poultry processing industry.

            Using these findings, OSHA secured a federal warrant to expand its earlier inspection to again include the entire facility.  Mar-Jac, however, successfully quashed the warrant as to five of the nine potential violations.

            Affirming the lower courts, the Eleventh Circuit again reminded employers that the DOL and its sub-agencies do not have a right to unlimited access to inspect employer premises.  Rather, an agency’s rights extend to two types of on-site inspections or audits.

  • First, the DOL can select the facility based on a general administrative or legislative plan where the selection is based on neutral criteria.
  • The second, and only other basis for inspection, is where the agency has specific identifiable evidence of an existing violation.

While the DOL does not need a warrant to initiate either type of inspection, it must obtain a warrant if the employer refuses to consent on Fourth Amendment grounds, i.e., that the search is not a reasonable one in its inception or scope.  And the required probable cause to overcome the employer’s objection is a higher burden for the government where the agency is relying on the second basis – the specific evidence of an existing violation.  Somewhat higher scrutiny applies to alleged existing violations because, absent legislative or administrative standards, there is a greater possibility that the agency has either targeted the employer or unreasonably expanded the search for purposes of harassment.

            The court agreed in this case that OSHA had unreasonably expanded the search, primarily by using the OSHA 300 logs to equate the existence of a workplace injury or illness with an OSHA violation, without regard to causation.  As the court observed, “the [OSHA] Regulations provide that ‘recording or reporting a work-related injury, illness, or fatality does not mean that the employer or employee was at fault, that an OSHA rule has been violated, or that the employee is eligible for workers’ compensation or other benefits.’”

The same standard pertinent to OSHA audits applies to on-site inspections by the other DOL sub-agencies.  Two caveats to bear in mind, however.  First, once the employer consents to the inspection – whether or not the consent is informed – it probably has waived its Fourth Amendment protection, at least to the extent of its consent.  And second, employers should carefully consider the potential impact on their agency relationships before objecting.  Both caveats suggest a reasoned approach based on fulsome advice and counsel before committing to either path.

This e-blast was written by Julia Turner Baumhart, who is a member of the Detroit SHRM Legal Affairs Committee.  Ms. Baumhart is a partner in the labor and employment firm of Kienbaum Opperwall Hardy & Pelton, P.L.C. in Birmingham, Michigan and can be contacted at jbaumhart@kohp.com or (248) 645-0000. 


Detroit SHRM encourages members to share these articles with others, inside and outside their organization, as long as its name and logo, and the author’s information, is included in the re-post of the article.  November 2018.