
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.
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
Employees have the right to pump breastmilk at work and/or nurse their children at work without fear of losing their jobs or being punished (directly or indirectly) for doing so. Those workplace rights are protected by employment laws, whether local, state, or federal.
Two federal laws that protect working moms are the:
These two laws have similarities, but also a few differences.
Under the PUMP Act, employers must give employees who are nursing reasonable break times during their workday and a private space to pump at work for up to 1 year after their child’s birth.
The space must be:
Employees may take reasonable break times each time they need to express milk. Employers may not deny a covered employee a needed break to pump. Employers, however, don’t have to pay employees for the breaks unless the employees are not completely relieved from their job duties.
If employers provide paid breaks, they must pay nonexempt employees who use such breaks to pump breast milk in the same way they pay other employees for breaks.
The PUMP Act doesn’t, however, require employers to allow employees to take time off to nurse their children.
Employers with fewer than 50 employees don’t have to comply with the PUMP Act if they can prove that complying would impose an undue hardship on them by causing significant difficulty or expense. To make this determination, employers must consider their company size, financial resources, nature of work, or structure of the business.
Under the PWFA, employers must give a “reasonable accommodation” to a worker’s known limitations related to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions, unless the accommodation would cause the employer an “undue hardship” on the business. “Workers” include those who are nursing their children up to a year after the birth.
Accommodations include giving employees breaks and space for pumping at work, similar to the PUMP Act. The PWFA, however, also includes accommodations when the regular location of the employee's workplace makes nursing during work hours a possibility because the child is nearby. Therefore, employers might have to allow breaks for employees to nurse.
While the PUMP Act limits its timeline for pumping breaks to up to 1 year after the child’s birth, the PWFA doesn’t have that limitation. Employers might, therefore, have to allow employees breaks for pumping or nursing for more than a year.
Key to remember: Employers must give employees breaks for pumping breast milk or nursing a child under two similar (but different) federal laws. Employers must also consider applicable state or local laws.
As online sites and mobile apps make it easier than ever to place a bet on the Super Bowl and other events, there are benefits to making the workplace a wager-free zone.
An estimated 2.5 million adults in the U.S. have a severe gambling problem, and another 5 to 8 million have a mild or moderate problem, according to the National Council on Problem Gambling. Issues with gambling can result in:
Most adults gamble responsibly. For those fighting the compulsion to place a bet, however, even seemingly benign workplace activities like a baby pool, group lottery ticket purchases, or a fantasy sports league purse can be dangerous and should be avoided.
Although gambling has financial consequences, problem gambling is more of an emotional issue than a financial one. Gambling brings a dopamine rush, which makes a person feel good.
This rush occurs whether a person wins or loses. That makes it tempting to keep gambling as losses pile up. While some people can stop gambling after a loss, others continue to gamble to win back what’s been lost. This is known as “chasing losses.”
According to the National Council on Problem Gambling, signs of gambling addiction include:
Because of the emotional impact of gambling, problematic habits can persist even if all debts are paid off. Getting rid of a gambling addiction often requires treatment and social support, as well as abstinence from gambling.
A few years ago, Matthew Missar of The Better Institute spoke on gambling and the workplace at the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) Annual Conference. He provided these tips to help curb problem gambling in the workplace:
Key to remember: Trying to guess which team will win the Super Bowl can make for interesting workplace conversation, but when it turns into a gambling opportunity, it’s best to say all bets are off.


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