Compliance Just Got Easier: Stay ahead of regulatory changes with instant notifications on updates that matter.
Copyright 2026 J. J. Keller & Associate, Inc. For re-use options please contact copyright@jjkeller.com or call 800-558-5011.
Regulatory Compliance News & Updates
Keep up to date on the latest
developments affecting OSHA, DOT,
EPA, and DOL regulatory compliance.
Safety & Compliance News
FEATURED NEWS
2026-11-11T06:00:00Z
NewsIndustry NewsIndustry NewsAssociate Benefits & CompensationAssociate RelationsHR GeneralistFamily and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)HR ManagementEnglishFocus AreaHuman ResourcesUSA
Moving RIF termination date up after FMLA leave request foils employer’s argument
John had been with the employer for a few years when the company began restructuring plans. This restructuring would involve eliminating some positions. John reported to Erica, who would decide which roles should be eliminated. In December 2024, Erica decided that John’s position would be eliminated.
The employer, however, didn’t document this decision until January 13. The next day, John contacted Canden in HR asking about the company's paternity leave policy. He asked that this be kept private due to complications with his wife’s last pregnancy.
Then, on February 17, John discovered documentation that reflected changes to his role. He asked Erica about it, and she encouraged him to apply for a different position. He didn’t. The next day — still before he announced his planned paternity leave — Erica created and sent a form that reflected the elimination of John’s role.
On March 3, John formally notified Erica about his wife’s pregnancy and his intention to take paternity leave later that spring.
On April 9, John formally requested FMLA leave. Two days later, on April 11, the employer told him about his upcoming termination. The remaining employees identified in the reduction in force (RIF), however, weren’t terminated until July.
John sued.
While the court ruled that no reasonable jury could find a “causal link” between John’s FMLA leave request and the general decision to include him in the RIF, it indicated that the employer might have accelerated his termination notice to April 11 because of his FMLA leave.
The close timing between John’s leave announcement and his termination notification caused the court to find in John’s favor and not throw the case out, as the employer wanted.
Shoemaker v. McKesson Corporation, Northern District of Texas, No. 3:25-CV-2558, September 9, 2026.
Key to remember: Employers must consider the dates of all the decisions surrounding a termination in relation to FMLA rights and protections.
Court decisions are based on the specific facts presented and each court’s interpretation of the law. Because courts may reach different conclusions, similar situations can lead to different outcomes. Employers should avoid relying on a single case as definitive guidance and instead assess each situation carefully, considering applicable laws, and seeking advice when needed.
Keep reading...Show less
2026-11-11T06:00:00Z
NewsSafety and Health Programs and TrainingRisk Assessment and ManagementOccupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), DOLSafety and Health Programs and TrainingIn-Depth ArticleEnglishRisk Assessment and ManagementIndustry NewsSafety & HealthConstruction SafetyGeneral Industry SafetyAgriculture SafetyMaritime SafetyFocus AreaUSA
The Swiss Cheese Model: Use it for safety AND sanity!
What does Swiss cheese have to do with safety and sanity? If you’ve spent any time in the safety field, you’ve likely heard of the Swiss Cheese Model for safety program effectiveness. The model is a powerful way to understand why incidents happen and when used properly, preventing these incidents becomes more manageable. Applying this model will help you to strengthen your safety program, one cheese hole at a time, so you can close gaps without feeling overwhelmed.
The Model
The Swiss Cheese Model is pictorial way to look at why incidents still occur when multiple layers of protection fail. Imagine several slices of Swiss cheese stacked together, each slice represents a safety barrier such as machine guarding, work procedures, or training.
The holes in the slices symbolize safety weaknesses like human error, poor communication, or equipment failure. When the holes perfectly align across all layers, a hazard can pass all the way through every line of defense and result in an incident.
Visualizing your safety program in this simple and easy-to-remember graphic can help you identify gaps and strengthen protections.
The Myth
One misconception with the Swiss Cheese Model is that as long you are addressing the basics of regulatory standards, incidents would be prevented. Unfortunately, this is not always the case, and additional factors must be considered.
Factors that influence the layers of protection include:
- Organizational such as the prioritization of safety in the workplace, a strong safety culture, resource management, and consistent processes;
- Supervisory including communication, leadership and oversight, planning, enforcing safety, and corrective actions;
- Environmental like tools and technology, work tasks, and workplace conditions;
- Individual which includes workers’ mental and physical conditions, fitness for duty, and overall well-being; and
- Behavioral that result from decisions or skill-based mistakes, perceptual failures, or errors in judgment that lead to unsafe acts.
Keep reading...Show less
2026-11-11T06:00:00Z
NewsShiftworkRhode IslandHR ManagementEnglishTalent Management & RecruitingAssociate Benefits & CompensationRecordkeepingRecruiting and hiringWage and HourChange NoticesChange NoticeWage and HourRecordkeepingBreaks and Meal PeriodsRecruiting and hiringHours WorkedMinimum WageHR GeneralistNon-Exempt employees StaffingUnions/Labor RelationsAssociate RelationsEmployee OrientationOnboardingFocus AreaHuman Resources
Rhode Island Warehouse Worker Protection Act to take effect
Effective date: January 1, 2027
This applies to: The law defines “employer” as a person who directly or indirectly, or through an agent or any other person, including through the services of a third-party employer, temporary service, or staffing agency or similar entity, employs or exercises control over the wages, hours, or working conditions of 100 or more employees at a single warehouse distribution center or 1,000 or more employees at one or more warehouse distribution centers in the state.
Description of change: Effective January 1, 2027, Rhode Island’s Warehouse Worker Protection Act takes effect. It requires covered employers to provide nonexempt (“hourly”) employees who work at a warehouse distribution center, upon their hire, with a written description of their daily tasks, expectations, and quotas that they’re expected to complete. This also includes what materials might be produced or handled.
A “quota” is broadly defined to mean a work standard under which an employee is assigned or required to perform at a specified productivity speed, or perform a quantified number of tasks, or to handle or produce a quantified mount of material, within a defined time period and under which the employee may suffer an adverse employment action, if the employee fails to complete the performance standard.
An employee shall not be required to meet a quota that prevents compliance with meal or rest periods, use of bathroom facilities, including reasonable travel time to and from bathroom facilities, or occupational health and safety laws in the labor laws or department standards.
An employer shall not take adverse employment action against an employee for failure to meet a quota that doesn't allow a worker to comply with meal and rest periods, use of bathroom facilities, or occupational health and safety laws, labor laws, or for failure to meet a quota that has not been disclosed to an employee.
Rhode Island is the 7th state to enact this type of legislation, along with similar laws in California, Minnesota, New York, Oregon, Washington, and Connecticut.
View related state info: Employee notices – Rhode Island
Keep reading...Show less
2026-11-11T06:00:00Z
NewsTraining & DevelopmentOn-the-job TrainingAssociate Benefits & CompensationDiscriminationGender DiscriminationDiscriminationTitle VII (The Civil Rights Act of 1964)HR PoliciesRace DiscriminationCompensationPolicies and ProceduresProtected classesCompensationPerformance AppraisalsHuman ResourcesTrainingSupervisor trainingEmployee DevelopmentHuman Resource ManagementHuman Resource ManagementPerformance ManagementPerformance ManagementMetrics/measurementsHR ManagementEnglishTalent Management & RecruitingIndustry NewsIndustry NewsAffirmative ActionHR GeneralistAssociate Relations
Employer settles discrimination case for $29.5 million
On November 4, the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Equal Employment Commission (EEOC) announced a $29.5 million settlement with a defense and aerospace manufacturer. The settlement resolves allegations relating to employment discrimination and related false certifications of compliance with federal civil rights laws while serving as a federal contractor.
A portion of the settlement, $7.5 million, will be paid to more than 1,000 employees affected by alleged violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The EEOC claims the company engaged in race discrimination against white employees, including in performance assessments and in bonus and other compensation decisions. This is the largest class of workers awarded payment under an EEOC settlement for alleged Title VII violations arising from or relating to a Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion program or practices.
Alleged violations included claims that the company:
- Took race into account when making employee compensation decisions.
- Took race or sex into account when making hiring and promotion decisions, including, efforts to achieve progress towards non-public race and sex-based workforce composition goals for business units. The goals were intended to impact the company’s promotion and hiring decisions.
- Offered certain training, mentoring, and leadership development programs, and/or similar opportunities to eligible employees based on race or sex, for example, an Executive Leadership Diversity Mentoring program. These programs were designed to boost the career prospects of these individuals over others through sponsorship and networking.
As part of the resolution, in addition to monetary relief, the EEOC’s agreement requires the company to comply with Title VII and Executive Order 14151 and to maintain a merit-based workplace in which race and sex aren’t considered in hiring, compensation, bonus, or promotion decisions. The EEOC may review the company’s compliance over the term of the agreement.
Key to remember: Manufacturer resolves allegations relating to employment discrimination and related false certifications of compliance with federal civil rights laws while serving as a federal contractor.
Keep reading...Show less
2026-11-11T06:00:00Z
Ready when the lights come on: Preparing drivers for roadside inspections
A successful roadside inspection starts long before a driver sees flashing lights or pulls into an inspection facility. Drivers should understand what inspectors may ask them to do, how to communicate with the officer, hours-of-service requests, and much more. Carriers can reduce confusion and stress by making drivers aware of the inspection process.
Teach drivers what to expect
Drivers should understand that all roadside inspections are not the same. The Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA) currently recognizes eight inspection levels, but most drivers will only encounter three:
- Level I: In-depth inspection of the driver and vehicle (including under the vehicle)
- Level II: Driver and a walk-around vehicle inspection
- Level III: Driver only inspection
The type of inspection is determined by enforcement agency goals, location, and time.
Professionalism goes a long way
The side of the road is not the place to win an argument over a regulation.
Carriers should train drivers to remain calm, follow the instructions of the officer, and respond professionally. If the driver doesn't understand what is asked, they should have the inspector repeat or clarify the request.
If there is a legitimate disagreement about a violation, the carrier can review the inspection afterward and challenge it through the DataQ process if appropriate.
The simple message drivers should take away from the training is:
- Be cooperative,
- Be professional, and
- Answer the questions that are asked.
No searching required
An inspection isn't the time to start digging through the sleeper looking for paperwork. Drivers should know where their required documents are and how to retrieve electronic records before they leave the terminal. Being able to calmly provide a license, vehicle credentials, hours-of-service (HOS) records, and load documentation when requested helps the inspection start smoothly and shows the officer that the driver is prepared.
Documentation requirements can vary based on whether the driver is operating a CDL or non-CDL vehicle, operating under IRP or IFTA, interstate or intrastate commerce, or transporting a regulated commodity. Drivers should be trained in what documentation applies to them and how to keep credentials current and organized. This will help the driver produce the documentation quickly if it is requested.
Hours-of-service knowledge
Electronic logging device (ELD) functionality varies based on platform. Training should require drivers to demonstrate how to use the ELD system. The exercise should require the driver to not only open the ELD inspection display and produce the required records but also simulate an electronic transfer of the logs.
Some drivers are exempt from using an ELD or a grid log to record their daily activities. Many carriers provide a letter that explains why the driver is exempt. Drivers need to be trained well enough on the exemption they use to answer any questions the inspector may have about the driver’s operation and why they qualify.
After the inspection
At the end of the inspection, the driver will receive a roadside inspection report(RSI) from the officer. Drivers should be trained in what the company's expectations are as well as the regulations. Drivers should understand:
- What to review on the RSI before leaving the inspection,
- When to notify the carrier,
- Who should receive the report and,
- How to document required repairs.
Carriers are no longer required to return the RSI to the issuing state unless they are requested. This step was eliminated as it was deemed unnecessary. Carriers are still required to make the necessary repairs and maintain a copy of the RSI in the vehicle maintenance file.
Key to remember: Carriers can't control when an inspection will happen, but they can control if a driver is prepared when it does.
Keep reading...Show less
2026-11-11T06:00:00Z
NewsProcess Safety ManagementIndustry NewsEnforcement and Audits - OSHASafety & HealthConstruction SafetyIn-Depth ArticleGeneral Industry SafetyFlammable LiquidsFocus AreaHazardous Materials Safety - OSHAEnglishOSHA Violations and PenaltiesHazardous Materials Safety - OSHAUSA
$95M wake-up call for OSHA PSM: What a flammable gas explosion can teach us
A recent government probe of an explosion and fire at a Pennsylvania chemical facility illustrates what can go wrong when Process Safety Management (PSM) safeguards fail. It also helps us understand why certain flammable gas processes are covered by 29 CFR 1910.119.
In September, the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB) announced its final report examining a June 2025 incident that occurred at the facility when flammable cracked gas backflowed into the firebox of an ethane cracking furnace, contacted lit pilots, and ignited. The explosion severely damaged the furnace and was followed by a fire that resulted in the evacuation of 15 employees. Despite the seriousness of the incident, no one was injured, but the explosion came with an estimated $95 million price tag.
CSB determined that the cause of the incident was the inadvertent simultaneous opening of two motor-operated valves used to isolate the furnace. Opening both valves created an unintended flow path that allowed flammable cracked gas to backflow into the furnace firebox.
Flammable gas coverage under the PSM standard
OSHA’s PSM standard at 1910.119 was created to prevent or minimize the consequences of catastrophic releases of toxic, reactive, flammable, or explosive chemicals. This includes flammable gases, so it’s important to know when the standard kicks in for them.
Barring any exceptions and exemptions, a process is subject to the standard when it involves a Category 1 flammable gas onsite in one location in a quantity of 10,000 pounds or more. A flammable gas does not have to be listed in Appendix A of 1910.119 to come under the standard. If it meets the criteria at 1910.119(a)(1)(ii), it is covered unless it has an exception or exemption.
The CSB investigation report says the Pennsylvania chemical facility considered its ethane cracking unit to fall under the OSHA PSM standard because the chemical quantities used or stored in the process exceeded the threshold quantity (TQ) of 10,000 pounds of flammable gas. Determining applicability takes more than knowing how much flammable gas is in a vessel. Subparagraph (a)(1)(ii) is only the starting point for an applicability determination.
Turn to the directive for applicability questions
OSHA directive CPL 02-01-065 provides interpretations of definitions, exceptions and exemptions, and complex issues like interconnected and co-located vessels, aggregation of quantities, mixtures, and which threshold to use. Several go over scenarios involving flammable gases. For example:
- Each aerosol container in a warehouse might hold only a small quantity of flammable gas, but if they are near each other such that an incident in one container could cause the potential release in another container, these containers are a single process. In that case, the individual amounts must be aggregated to determine if a TQ exists.
- When determining the TQ, flammable gases and flammable liquids are aggregated separately.
- For a flammable gas mixture, the non-flammable components are included in the TQ. If the mixture meets subparagraph (a)(1)(ii) for a flammable gas, the quantity of the entire mixture is used to determine if a TQ exists.
- If a substance that is a flammable gas is listed in Appendix A of the standard, the TQ used in determining PSM coverage is the lower of the following amounts: the TQ specified in Appendix A or 10,000 pounds.
PSM elements are required
When 1910.119 applies to a process, the employer must put PSM program elements in place to address the hazards. Key elements include, but are not limited to, compiling process safety information, performing process hazard analyses (PHAs), implementing written operating procedures (OPs), training employees, ensuring mechanical integrity, and conducting compliance audits.
In December 2025, OSHA issued citations stemming from the June 2025 incident relating to 1910.119(e)(3)(i) and (vi) and (f)(1)(i)(C). Those citations alleged that:
- The PHA didn’t address the process hazards during decoking operations and the startup to return to normal cracking operations.
- The PHA didn’t adequately address human factors for non-routine operations, such as what happens if a critical step is performed incorrectly.
- The employer didn’t develop and implement written OPs that provide clear instructions for safely conducting temporary operations.
CSB concludes that the company actively chose to rely solely on administrative controls to prevent a potentially fatal explosion in its PHA revalidation. CSB Investigator Owen Trippany said, “This incident demonstrates the importance of using engineered safeguards to control serious process hazards in all modes of operation, rather than relying solely on procedures and worker actions.”
Key to remember
Employers with processes that involve flammable gases should determine whether those processes are subject to the PSM standard. If so, they must comply with several program elements, including performing PHAs and implementing written OPs. At the same time, CSB offers this lesson: administrative controls should not be solely relied on to prevent fire and explosions.
Keep reading...Show less
Got a Compliance Question?
We’ve Got You Covered!
Get clear, reliable answers from experts with 500+ years of combined experience.
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 2026 J. J. Keller & Associate, Inc. For re-use options please contact copyright@jjkeller.com or call 800-558-5011.