
SAFETY & COMPLIANCE NEWS
Keep up to date on the latest developments affecting OSHA, DOT, EPA, and DOL regulatory compliance.

SAFETY & COMPLIANCE NEWS
Keep up to date on the latest developments affecting OSHA, DOT, EPA, and DOL regulatory compliance.
Conversations about worker mental health often gravitates toward conditions like depression or anxiety, which are issues that can negatively impact safety and performance. But mental health is much broader. It spans the entire spectrum of human emotions and behaviors: from stress and sadness to excitement and pride. Every point on that spectrum influences how employees engage in their work.
For example, an employee feeling overly confident might bypass safety protocols, while someone struggling with focus due to stress or depression could inadvertently put themselves in harm’s way. Mental health goes beyond avoiding illness; it involves understanding how emotional well-being shapes decision-making, safety, and productivity.
Unlike physical safety measures, such as machine guarding, which is objective and relatively easy to regulate, mental health is inherently subjective. This makes it far more challenging to address using clear-cut regulations. OSHA’s past attempts to regulate ergonomics and current efforts around heat illness illustrate this difficulty. Human variability, differences in physiology, acclimation, and personality, makes one-size-fits-all rules nearly impossible. Mental health is even more complex because it’s deeply tied to individual experiences and perceptions.
Currently, regulatory bodies like OSHA provide guidance for mental health in the workplace rather than enforceable standards. There is no definitive “doctrine” for mental health compliance, and much of what exists is based on expert opinion rather than codified law. This doesn’t mean organizations should ignore mental health. On the contrary, its impact on safety, productivity, and overall culture is undeniable.
The challenge for employers has two parts. First, they need to decide what mental health means in their organization. Second, they need to find ways to measure its impact.
In manufacturing, where I’ve spent much of my career, I use data to judge whether changes are working. If I were starting a mental health program, I would look at clear measures, like productivity, before and after the program begins. While these numbers don’t prove cause and effect, tracking them over time can help show whether the program is making a positive impact.
Of course, workplaces are ever changing. External factors like economic conditions or incentive programs promoting initiatives can skew results. That’s why mental health strategies should be progressive and proactive, implement, measure, adjust, and repeat. Even if the data isn’t perfect, maintaining programs that foster well-being is better than doing nothing. Over time, consistent efforts will help build a culture where mental health is valued as much as physical safety.
Key to remember: Mental health affects how people work, make decisions, and stay safe. When employers value mental well-being as much as physical safety, everyone benefits.
Under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), employers may ask for reasonable documentation of employees’ limitations when conditions aren’t obvious or when they don’t already have enough documentation. This step occurs when employees ask for accommodations as part of an interactive process with employers. Once employers have enough information, they shouldn’t ask for updated documentation unless something has changed.
An employer learned that asking for updated documentation and pausing the accommodation process didn’t sit well with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) or a court.
Megan, an employee, had a disability. She asked to work fewer hours as a reasonable accommodation and gave her employer medical documentation to support her request. The employer approved the accommodation.
Megan also took time off under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) for which she supplied a certification.
Eventually, Megan asked to be reassigned to an open, part-time position as a reasonable accommodation. She applied for three vacant positions.
Before the employer proceeded with Megan’s reassignment request, it told her that she had to provide updated documentation. While waiting for the documentation, the employer paused the accommodation process. Several months later, Megan provided the documentation, but by then, the employer had filled the positions.
Megan went to the EEOC, and the agency sued the employer on her behalf.
The EEOC alleged that the employer violated the ADA by failing to reassign Megan to a vacant position as a reasonable accommodation.
The employer argued that Megan didn’t provide updated medical documentation before it filled all three positions. As a result, the employer claimed, it didn’t have to consider her accommodation request.
The court said it’s true that, generally speaking, employers have the right to ask for documentation on the medical necessity of an employee’s accommodation.
Case law doesn’t, however, say that employers may take no action on an employee’s request or pause the interactive process entirely when it’s already on notice of an employee’s disability.
Megan already gave the employer medical paperwork on two occasions:
The court found, therefore, that the employer’s requirement that Megan give it updated medical documentation before it took any action on Megan’s transfer request was done in bad faith. The employer already had sufficient information.
Thus, the court said, there was no general legal requirement that an employee who’s already provided medical documentation must provide more before triggering the employer’s obligation to continue the ADA interactive process.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. William Beaumont Hospital d/b/a Beaumont Health System, Eastern District of Michigan, No. 23-cv-11560, 19 November 2025.
Key to remember: Employers that already have paperwork supporting an employee’s accommodation request shouldn’t ask for updated documentation, and they shouldn’t hold off on providing an accommodation while waiting.
Shipping papers, placards, and cargo securement dominated the list of reasons drivers received hazardous materials (hazmat or HM) violations during roadside inspections in 2025.
Out of 3.1 million roadside inspections last year, there were 35,700 hazmat violations, and 26 percent of those resulted in an out-of-service (OOS) order. Being familiar with the most common hazmat violations can help drivers and motor carriers take steps to avoid them.
The following table lists the top 20 hazmat violations cited during roadside inspections in 2025, including:
| Rank | Code | Description | Violations | OOS | CSA |
| 1 | 172.504, 177.823(a) | Placards or ID numbers missing or incorrect | 3,837 | 54% | 5 |
| 2 | 177.834(a) | Inadequate HM cargo securement | 3,561 | 99% | 10 |
| 3 | 172.201, 172.202 | HM shipping paper prepared improperly | 2,463 | 1% | 3 |
| 4 | 177.817(a) | No HM shipping paper | 2,439 | 68% | 3 |
| 5 | 172.516(c) | Placard damaged or improperly displayed | 2,348 | 0% | 5 |
| 6 | 177.817(e) | HM shipping papers inaccessible | 1,906 | 2% | 3 |
| 7 | 107.620(b) | No HM Registration Number in vehicle | 1,819 | 0% | 0 |
| 8 | 172.502(a) | Prohibited placarding | 1,352 | 12% | 5 |
| 9 | 177.801 | Failing to properly prepare an HM shipment, or transporting forbidden HM | 1,306 | 19% | 2-10 |
| 10 | 172.600(c) | No emergency response information immediately available | 1,153 | 0% | 3 |
| 11 | 172.328(d) | Manual remote shutoff device improperly marked | 923 | 0% | 5 |
| 12 | 172.602(c) | Improper maintenance/ accessibility of Emergency Response information | 916 | 0% | 3 |
| 13 | 173.24(b) | Leaking HM packaging | 786 | 91% | 10 |
| 14 | 172.602(a) | Incomplete or missing emergency response information | 748 | 0% | 3 |
| 15 | 172.200(a) | No/improper shipping paper from offeror | 713 | 18% | 3 |
| 16 | 180.415 | Improper cargo tank test information | 608 | 0% | 7 |
| 17 | 172.400(a) | Packaging not properly labeled | 443 | 0% | 5 |
| 18 | 172.332 | Failing to display ID numbers | 428 | 17% | 5 |
| 19 | 172.506(a) | Failure to affix placards | 345 | 10% | 5 |
| 20 | 107.608 | Failing to register with PHMSA | 302 | 0% | 0 |
In certain situations, employers can claim “undue hardship” when it comes to workplace accommodations under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). An undue hardship occurs when providing the particular accommodation would result in significant difficulty or expense, based on a company’s resources and business operations. One employer learned how this defense can work to its benefit.
On November 15, 2022, Sara, an employee, was diagnosed with cancer. She told her supervisor, John, of her diagnosis and that surgery was scheduled for December 6. She requested leave under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) from December 6 to February 27, 2023, and the employer approved it.
On January 23, Sara requested more leave, and the company approved non-FMLA leave from February 28 to May 28.
Sara made a third request for leave on March 22, and the employer approved it and extended her non-FMLA leave until August 6.
On June 8, Sara made a fourth request for leave until September 10 — nearly 9 months of total leave.
Upon receiving this request, John met with other company executives, where they discussed:
The executives ultimately concluded that this fourth request would cause the company undue hardship. Consequently, on June 21, the employer denied Sara’s fourth request for leave.
After learning about the denial, Sara talked to the company leaders and assured them that she could return to work on September 10. Based on this, the company decided to grant the latest round of leave.
On August 29, however, the company’s in-house counsel contacted Sara’s attorney to ask whether she would be returning to work. She responded that she wouldn’t. Accordingly, the company terminated her on September 8.
Sara sued, claiming that the employer failed to accommodate her under the ADA when it denied her fourth leave extension.
Even though the employer changed its mind on the denial, the court found that the facts supported the employer’s undue hardship defense. The employer had reason to doubt that Sara would return on September 10, since she had given a return date with each extension. If Sara’s absence continued past August, the company wouldn’t be able to meet its end-of-year demands.
Sara argued that she needed only 33 days of leave and had a definite return date. Courts, however, look at the total amount of leave when considering whether a request for more leave is reasonable. If employers were to consider only the most recent request for additional leave, employees could simply keep requesting leave in one-week or one-month increments in the hopes that such requests, standing alone, would be reasonable. Sara’s leave spanned more than 9 months, which the court considered unreasonable.
Because the employer established an undue hardship defense, the court ruled in its favor.
Schmitt v. UMB Financial Corporation, District Court of Colorado, No. 1:24-cv-01900, January 7, 2026.
Key to remember: Courts can agree that repeated requests for leave extensions pose an undue hardship under the federal ADA, but employers have to be able to show it.
I recently bought a new car that has lots of bells and whistles. Its Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS) are constantly alerting me to “perceived” risks. It’s a far cry from my first car, a 1976 Chevette that didn’t have AC or an FM radio.
Motor vehicles today have a lot of information coming at drivers all at once, and it’s easy to become distracted. I wonder whether, in some way, my simple compact car was less of a distraction. The only tasks that took my eyes off the road were adjusting the radio station or car temperature.
Just like my personal vehicle, modern commercial motor vehicles are equipped with ADAS. They also have telematics and dash cameras to capture and reduce unsafe driving behaviors. Drivers are subjected to (sometimes very loud) warnings over an 11-hour shift.
It should be no surprise that some commercial drivers suffer from alarm fatigue. They often turn down the volume, ignore alerts, or become so desensitized to monitoring alarms that they don’t even notice them anymore.
What can a carrier do to prevent drivers from tuning out, turning down, or turning off their vehicle warnings?
Even though ADAS can be irritating at times, company policy should restrict drivers from silencing alerts. The ding or beep might just keep them from being in a serious accident.
Heart disease and stroke are the leading causes of death and disability in the United States, costing the nation billions each year in health care services, medications, and lost productivity.
Simply heading to work can be tough on the heart, as exposure to certain social, organizational, and environmental conditions in the workplace play a role in heart disease risk.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) notes work is linked to 10-20 percent of cardiovascular disease deaths and indicates that these work-related factors increase heart disease risk:
In addition, a job can influence other heart disease risks:
The CDC points to these occupations as having a higher risk of heart disease:
February is American Heart Month and is a great time to consider the steps a business can take to help employees reduce their risk of heart disease.
This includes support for treatment and medical intervention, as well as workplace policies. To help support worker heart health:
Key to remember: During American Heart Month, look at changes your workplace can make to better support employee heart health


Got a Compliance Question?
We’ve Got You Covered!
Get clear, reliable answers from experts with 500+ years of combined experience.