SAFETY & COMPLIANCE NEWS
Keep up to date on the latest developments affecting OSHA, DOT, EPA, and DOL regulatory compliance.
Copyright 2025 J. J. Keller & Associate, Inc. For re-use options please contact copyright@jjkeller.com or call 800-558-5011.
FEATURED NEWS
2025-04-02T05:00:00Z
NewsIndustry NewsIndustry NewsDriver qualificationsDriving RecordsMedical waivers and exemptions - Motor CarrierAnnual MVR reviewDriver qualification and hiringFocus AreaFleet OperationsEnglishDriver disqualification - Non-CDL driversTransportationUSA
2 hot FMCSA medical news updates!
On April 1, 2025, the new versions of commercial driver medical certification forms, which now expire on March 31, 2028, were posted on the FMCSA website:
Those who work with commercial driver medical certifications have been waiting for an update from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) on these two important medical forms, which originally expired on March 31, 2025.
Changes to the forms
The Medical Examination Report (MER) MCSA-5875, also called the "Long Form," and the Medical Examiner’s Certification (MCSA-5876), or the "Fed Med" card, were approved by the Office of Management and Budget on March 27, 2025. However, they were not available on the FMCSA website until April 1, 2025.
The changes include the new expiration date of March 31, 2028, and a revision date of March 27, 2025. The address in the Public Burden Statement at the top of the form was also updated. FMCSA reviews and updates these forms regularly, and the Office of Management and Budget must approve the final versions.
FMCSA expects medical examiners to start using the new forms as soon as possible, but they can still use their old forms with the 3/31/2025 expiration date until they run out.
CDL driver medical certification update
Another important update affects commercial driver’s licensed (CDL) drivers. By June 23, 2025, the process for updating CDL drivers’ medical certifications will be easier. By this date, all State Driver Licensing Agencies (SDLAs) must be connected to the National Registry of Certified Medical Examiners (NRCME). This system is where examiners enter medical certification information after each exam.
Each state will switch to the new process once their system can receive CDL driver medical certification information, which will then appear on the motor vehicle record (MVR). A copy of a CDL driver’s MVR must be in the driver’s qualification file after each exam.
FMCSA still requires a copy of a non-CDL driver’s medical card to be in the driver qualification file. This process is not changing for non-CDL drivers.
What’s changing by June 23, 2025:
- CDL drivers won’t need to self-certify their medical cards with the SDLA because this will be done through the NRCME to SDLA connection.
- Carriers won’t need to note that the examiner was on the NRCME on the date of the exam.
CDL drivers and carriers should check the SDLA websites for their transition dates and instructions on CDL driver medical certification.
What’s not changing on June 23, 2025:
- CDL drivers need to verify their driving type when they get a new CDL or Commercial Learner’s Permit (CLP), or when they upgrade or renew their CDL. They must choose one of the following:
- Non-excepted Interstate (requires medical certification)
- Excepted Interstate (DOT exam not required)
- Non-excepted Intrastate (intrastate-only and medical certification required)
- Excepted Intrastate (intrastate-only and DOT exam not required)
- Carriers must place a CDL motor vehicle record (MVR) in the driver qualification file after each exam. The number of days allowed for this may decrease from the current limit of 15 days.
Overall, carriers, CDL drivers, and medical examiners must understand how the medical certification changes will impact keeping medically qualified drivers on the road.
Keep reading...Show less
RECENT INDUSTRY HIGHLIGHTS
2025-04-02T05:00:00Z
NewsIndustry NewsIndustry NewsAssociate Benefits & CompensationHR GeneralistFamily and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)Associate RelationsEnglishHR ManagementFocus AreaHuman ResourcesUSA
Fired employee miscoded time off as FMLA leave – Employer prevails in court
Jamie asked for and was granted intermittent leave under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) for a medical condition. As the expiration date for her FMLA leave approached, if Jamie wanted to extend it, she needed to complete and return a medical recertification. Jamie told her employer she wanted the extension but didn’t provide the requested certification.
The employer, therefore, denied Jamie’s request for extended FMLA leave.
Other form of leave
The company also gave employees 60 hours of unexcused absence (UA) leave every six months. As with FMLA leave, the company required employees to report and appropriately code their UAs in the attendance system.
If employees exceeded their allotted UA hours during a six-month period, their UA balance turned “negative.” Under company policy, the employer considered employees with a negative UA balance to have voluntarily resigned and terminated them.
Inaccurate coding
Jamie used 44.25 hours of UA leave. Even though the employer denied her request for more FMLA leave, she improperly coded 22.5 hours of absences as FMLA leave. These absences should have reduced her UA balance, but because she had incorrectly coded them as FMLA leave and not UAs, the company’s attendance reporting system didn’t reduce her UA balance.
Jamie continued to take more leave and either she or Nicole, her supervisor, coded the time off incorrectly as FMLA leave. Nicole audited Jamie’s reporting and discovered multiple discrepancies. Nicole concluded that if the days that Jamie had coded as FMLA leave were re-coded as UAs, her UA balance would turn negative, subjecting her to termination. Based on company policy, the employer fired Jamie.
Court sides with the employer
Jamie sued, claiming that the employer violated her FMLA rights.
The employer argued that it didn’t fire Jamie for taking FMLA leave, but for violating the company’s UA policy.
The court agreed with the employer’s request to have the case dismissed. The undisputed facts established that Jamie violated the company’s leave policies and was subject to termination regardless of her FMLA rights. Because Jamie didn’t give the employer a requested recertification, she lost her FMLA protections, as well.
Lacy v. Kohl’s Corporation, Eastern District of Wisconsin, No. 23-cv-0765, March 24, 2025.
Key to remember: Employees must still follow company policies including coding their absences correctly. Employees who fail to provide requested certifications risk their FMLA protections.
Keep reading...Show less
2025-04-02T05:00:00Z
NewsIndustry NewsCompliance reviews - Motor CarrierFleet SafetyEnglishFocus AreaIn-Depth ArticleEnforcement - DOTTransportationUSA
What costs the most when it comes to non-compliance
One of the largest risks a motor carrier faces is a significant fine following a compliance review, safety audit, or focused investigation by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA). How significant a risk is this? Based on 2024 closed enforcement data provided by FMCSA, that risk can cost over $100,000.
Most common issues at carriers with large penalties
Under the principle that you will not live long enough to make all the mistakes you can make, and therefore need to learn from others, let’s review which violations led to carriers paying a significant penalty.
The violations discovered at the carrier with the highest penalty in 2024 include:
- Loading and transporting leaking containers of hazardous materials (173.24),
- Using cargo tanks to transport hazardous materials that were not in compliance with the regulations (173.33),
- Not training drivers on transporting hazardous materials when required (177.800), and
- Using shipping papers that did not meet the requirements (177.817).
The violations at the carrier that had the second highest penalty in 2024 include:
- Using drivers that had suspended, revoked or otherwise invalid CDL (383.37);
- Having false logs (395.8(e)); and
- Not having a systematic maintenance program (396.3(a)).
Other violations in the top 10
Other violations found at the carriers that made up the top 10 most penalized carriers in 2024 included:
- Presenting false records (390.35)
- Not meeting the random drug testing minimums (382.305)
- Using a driver that had tested positive and had not completed the return-to-duty test (382.309)
- Using a driver without having verified negative drug testing results (382.301)
- Failing to conduct post-accident drug and alcohol testing (382.303)
- Failing to require drivers to submit a driver vehicle inspection report (DVIR) when required (396.11)
- Not conducting pre-employment and annual Drug and Alcohol Clearinghouse queries (382.701)
- Not having an accident register or not having all accidents on the accident register (390.15)
- Using a driver that was not correctly licensed (391.11(b)(5))
- Not having the required records of duty status (395.8(a))
All of these carriers were assigned penalties in excess of $58,000, with the highest being over $107,000.
Key to remember: Knowing which violations the most penalized carriers were penalized for can help the rest of us. Taking the list of violations and verifying your company is not committing violations in these areas can help reduce the odds you will make the most penalized list for 2025.
Keep reading...Show less
2025-04-02T05:00:00Z
NewsIndustry NewsRecruiting and hiringRecruiting and hiringInterviewingHR GeneralistIn-Depth ArticleUSAApplications/ApplicantsEnglishHR ManagementFocus AreaTalent Management & RecruitingHuman Resources
A $1.6 million reason to avoid sex discrimination in hiring
A surefire way for an employer to upset the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is to keep recruiting and hiring notes such as:
- “DO NOT schedule a female for this post”
- “Post is MALE ONLY!”
It’s because of discriminatory “reminders” like these, as well as other infractions, that an Alabama contract security solutions provider must pay $1.6 million, according to an EEOC lawsuit.
The suit alleged the company engaged in sex discrimination over the past few years by:
- Denying security officer jobs and assignments to women.
- Telling female applicants that they wouldn’t be selected for security positions or assignments because of their sex.
The EEOC’s complaint also alleged that company displayed a pattern of sex discrimination, keeping women from pursuing job opportunities despite having prior work experience in security, law enforcement, or the military.
Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a federal employment antidiscrimination law enforced by the EEOC.
Lessons for other employers
Since most companies don’t have $1.6 million laying around, here are three ways to stay off the EEOC’s radar when recruiting and hiring:
- Do an audit. Look for and remove any discriminatory language in the recruiting and hiring processes. This could be documents stored electronically, notes jotted down on paper, emails back and forth with hiring managers, etc. Dig through and clean it up. Especially watch out for notes taken during interviews, such as:
- “This candidate looks too old for the job.”
- “I don’t think she could lift the materials. A man would be stronger.”
- Review client relationships. Avoid catering to client preferences based on sex or any other protected class. Meaning, if a client says, for example, they’d rather have a female customer service representative versus a male, that is the kind of “red flag” language that could lead to a lawsuit if not addressed and dealt with appropriately.
- Be proactive. Whether it’s a million-dollar lawsuit or not, the damage from defending against discrimination claims costs goes beyond money. In the case of this Alabama company, for instance, they have years of EEOC monitoring, training, and other requirements ahead. There are also unseen costs in cases like this, such as a tarnished public image and lower employee morale. It’s better to be proactive and have a compliant recruiting and hiring process than risk a claim.
Key to remember: Having a compliant recruiting and hiring process is priceless.
Keep reading...Show less
2025-04-02T05:00:00Z
NewsEmergency Planning - OSHAIndustry NewsSafety & HealthGeneral Industry SafetyEmergency ExitsExit RoutesSigns and MarkingsIn-Depth ArticleSigns and MarkingsEnglishFocus AreaUSA
What’s your “exit strategy” for emergency sign lighting?
Having a good exit strategy means being able to see where you are going during an emergency. OSHA regulations emphasize the importance of adequately lit exit signage to ensure the safe evacuation of employees. These rules require not only that each exit pathway be sufficiently illuminated, but also that the exit signs are clearly visible.
What does OSHA mean by “clearly visible ?”
Despite popular belief that exit signs must be self-illuminated, this is not an OSHA requirement. As long as ambient light, direct light, or emergency lighting can ensure that the exit signs remain visible at all times, then they don’t need to be electronically lighted.
Basic metal or plastic signs can be used; however, they must remain visible even if there is a loss of power. When non-illuminated exit signs are used, employers must still ensure they can be easily seen. This challenge is why many employers opt for electrically wired or battery-operated exit signs with an emergency backup power source. The other option is electroluminescent signage.
What does “illuminated” mean?
OSHA requires in 1910.37(b)(6) that, “Each exit sign must be illuminated to a surface value of at least five foot-candles (54 lux) by a reliable light source and be distinctive in color. Self-luminous or electroluminescent signs that have a minimum luminance surface value of at least .06 footlamberts (0.21 cd/m2) are permitted."
OSHA defines these terms in 1910.34 as:
- Self-luminous — a light source that is illuminated by a self-contained power source (e.g., tritium) and that operates independently from external power sources. Batteries are not acceptable self-contained power sources. The light source is typically contained inside the device.
- Electroluminescent — a light-emitting capacitor with alternating currents that excite phosphor atoms when placed between the electrically conductive surfaces to produce light. This light source is typically contained inside the device.
Here are more definitions to help shed light on OSHA’s requirement:
- Foot-candle — a unit of measurement that lighting professionals used to describe the amount of light that covers a one square-foot surface.
- Lumen — The amount of visible light given off by a specific source.
- Lux — The amount of light output over a given area.
OSHA’s 5 foot-candle requirement is not as bright as one might think. It is relatively dim, providing enough light to move around but not enough to perform detailed or concentrated activities. This would be similar to what you might see in a parking garage.
Key to remember: To ensure employee safety, OSHA requires exit signs to be sufficiently illuminated and visible to workers at all times.
Keep reading...Show less
2025-04-01T05:00:00Z
NewsHuman Resource ManagementHuman Resource ManagementDisabilities and ADAIn-Depth ArticleHR ManagementEnglishHuman ResourcesIndustry NewsSafety & HealthGeneral Industry SafetyHR GeneralistHeavy Equipment and VehiclesHeavy Equipment and VehiclesFocus AreaDisabilities and ADAUSA
Case helps illustrate ADA’s ‘direct threat’ meaning
As a bucket foreperson, Larry helped maintain and fix electrical facilities in the field. The job required Larry to climb up poles, work with live (potentially deadly) powerlines, and operate a bucket truck, often in extreme weather conditions and at unusual — sometimes long — hours. The company relied on two teams to perform these tasks. The bucket foreperson supervised the other linemen and always had to stay alert. The company also required bucket truck operators to possess a commercial driver’s license.
After working for the company for almost 30 years, Larry began having seizures. The seizures could last as short as a few seconds or as long as 90 seconds. During a seizure, Larry would be mentally altered and not know what was happening around him. There were no warning signs about when a seizure might occur; they were unpredictable.
In March 2020, an exhausted Larry had been working all night repairing lines with another employee. While driving the truck, Larry suffered a seizure and swerved a bit out of his lane. The other employee in the truck noticed the seizure and reported the incident to their supervisor. The supervisor told Larry to see a doctor. Larry’s doctor cleared him to return to work.
While repairing an elevated power line that August, one of Larry’s coworkers went up in the bucket. Larry and the other employees remained on the ground. From the elevated bucket, the coworker spotted Larry lying face down on the ground and feared that he had died. This coworker told the others to place a “mayday call.” An ambulance took Larry to the emergency room, where doctors diagnosed him with heat exhaustion. They also released him to return to work the same day.
HR’s concerns
Connie, the company’s HR VP put Larry on leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). Given the two incidents within months of each other, Connie worried that Larry’s seizures could cause a catastrophic event and get someone killed. Connie asked a private physician who served as the company’s medical review officer, to evaluate Larry. Larry’s doctor also completed the paperwork that took him out of work for the short term.
The doctors released Larry to work, but with limited hours. He also couldn’t operate a vehicle or powered equipment for at least five months. Later, the doctors removed the driving restriction but didn’t remove the limited hours.
Connie decided that a bucket foreperson’s ability to work extended hours on short notice was essential to the job. So, she investigated whether the company could transfer Larry to a different role. Larry, however, didn’t qualify for any open positions. The company told Larry that they couldn’t accommodate his condition and that he could retire or be let go. He chose retirement, but sued, claiming that the company discriminated against him because of his condition and that he didn’t pose a direct threat.
Employer wins direct threat argument
Because of the hours and hazards of a bucket foreperson, along with the doctors’ input, the court found in favor of the employer and agreed that Larry qualified as a direct threat of harm to himself and others.
Smith v. Newport Utilities, Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 24-5502, February 27, 2025.
ADA’s direct threat
The federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) protects employees who are qualified individuals; if they can perform, with or without reasonable accommodation, the job’s essential functions.
Because employees who are considered a direct threat of harm to themselves or others aren’t “qualified individuals” under this definition, the ADA does not protect them.
The ADA defines a “direct threat” as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that can’t be eliminated by reasonable accommodation.” Employers must consider four factors when deciding whether a significant risk exists:
- The duration of the risk,
- The nature and severity of the potential harm,
- The likelihood that this harm will arise, and
- The imminence of the harm.
Employers also should engage in an individualized direct-threat assessment and base their conclusions on reasonable medical judgment, the best available objective evidence, or both.
Key to remember: Employers can take action against an employee who poses a direct threat, but they must be able to show the direct threat.
Keep reading...Show less
Search all news
Did You Know You Can Ask Unlimited Questions to Our Compliance Experts?
Get answers to your most puzzling compliance questions from the industry’s top experts!
J. J. Keller is the trusted source for DOT / Transportation, OSHA / Workplace Safety, Human Resources, Construction Safety and Hazmat / Hazardous Materials regulation compliance products and services. J. J. Keller helps you increase safety awareness, reduce risk, follow best practices, improve safety training, and stay current with changing regulations.
Copyright 2025 J. J. Keller & Associate, Inc. For re-use options please contact copyright@jjkeller.com or call 800-558-5011.