No magic words needed (for an employee to trigger FMLA)

Common local level programs

A strong example of local involvement can be seen in air quality management. The National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA) reports that 117 local air agencies participate in implementing federal and state clean air programs, highlighting how implementation frequently happens at the local level.

EPA’s AirNow directory lists numerous local air quality agencies across the country; Examples include air pollution control districts in California (such as the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District, the San Francisco Bay Area Air Quality Management District, and the South Coast Air Quality Management District) as well as local air programs in Maricopa County, Arizona; Jacksonville, Florida; and Omaha, Nebraska. These districts conduct inspections, issue permits, investigate complaints, and maintain air monitoring networks, all of which support state and federal clean air requirements.

Local authority is also central to solid waste management, where many states rely heavily on counties and municipalities to manage planning, facilities, and enforcement. For instance, Washington State requires local governments to develop comprehensive solid and hazardous waste management plans that guide all waste handling and recycling programs within each county or city. These plans determine facility needs, outline reduction and recycling strategies, and shape local ordinances designed to meet state goals.

Additional examples appear across the country. Maryland’s Montgomery County, California’s Alameda County, and the District of Columbia all implement ambitious local waste diversion plans that supplement or exceed state requirements, demonstrating how counties and cities directly shape waste reduction and recycling policy. Likewise, South Carolina places most solid waste management responsibility on county governments, which must develop local plans, designate recycling coordinators, and report progress toward statewide goals.

Why is local involvement critical?

Local environmental regulatory authority matters because conditions vary widely across the nation. Counties and municipalities better understand their own industries, land uses, and growth patterns, allowing them to respond quickly to complaints, target outreach effectively, and adopt ordinances that go beyond state or federal minimums when necessary. Their proximity to communities makes local agencies essential partners in achieving environmental compliance and advancing public health protections.

As federal and state programs evolve, the role of local agencies continues to expand. Air quality districts, solid waste authorities, and local environmental health departments all demonstrate how counties and municipalities contribute directly to national environmental objectives.

Key to remember: With thousands of local agencies responsible for on the ground regulatory tasks, the strength and responsiveness of the United States’ environmental protection system depend heavily on the active engagement of local governments.

How do these sessions work?

Much like toolbox talks in the construction industry, these brief sessions take about five to fifteen minutes and focus on a single issue or a portion of a larger topic, making it easy to integrate learning into even the busiest schedules.

For example, a specific aspect of the hours-of-service rule, such as the definition of on-duty time or how the 14-hour duty rule works, could be addressed during one of these short training sessions.

Other topics that work well in a mini-training session format include:

• Hazard perception,
• Safety belt use,
• Road construction/work zone safety,
• Lifting techniques, and
• Severe weather safety.

Use a mix of instructional techniques

When preparing your mini-training session, consider incorporating a mix of instructional techniques to help convey your message. Use of multiple methods during the same training session aids in retention and reinforces key takeaways. Examples of techniques that can be used in this time-sensitive training format include:

• Handouts covering the session’s main points,
• Question and answer session,
• Demonstration,
• Discussion, and
• Drills or exercises that include class participation.

Key to remember: Mini‑training sessions provide a quick, effective way to deliver ongoing driver education without disrupting daily operations.

No fishing

As proposed, the rule directs the FMCSA and other DOT agencies to avoid “fishing expeditions” without enough evidence in hand to support an enforcement claim. It also spells out what an enforcement notice should include — what rule you allegedly violated, the key facts, and what rights you have to challenge it and “avoid unfair surprise.”

Transparency is another key component. The rule will require agencies to share potentially exculpatory evidence — basically, information in the government’s hands that could help you defend yourself or reduce the penalty. The proposed version of the rule states that “making affirmative disclosures of exculpatory evidence in all enforcement actions will contribute to the [DOT’s] goal of open and fair investigations and administrative enforcement proceedings.”

The rule is also expected to reinforce the fact that guidance documents — including interpretations issued by the FMCSA and often published along with FMCSA regulations — are not legally binding. In addition, agencies will need to take additional steps in the guidance development process, such as doing cost-benefit analyses and legal review, and getting public input.

Many of the changes in the proposed rule were in place prior to 2021 but were rescinded by the previous administration.

A new era for enforcement

One of the most intriguing changes in the rule will allow motor carriers to petition the DOT to argue that their staff violated procedural requirements. If the carrier wins, the proposed remedies go beyond a scolding for the investigators. They could include:

• Removing the enforcement team,
• Excluding certain issues or evidence,
• Ordering certain factual findings, or
• Restarting the enforcement action from the beginning or from an earlier point in the proceedings.

FMCSA enforcement cases dropped dramatically last year even without the new rule; the future may hold even fewer once the proposed changes go into effect.

Key to remember: A new “rule on rules” from the DOT is expected soon, and it could change the FMCSA’s enforcement playbook.

Consider the upcoming Roadcheck event

With International Roadcheck just around the corner on May 12–14 and its 2026 focus on electronic logging device (ELD) tampering and falsification, one particular addition to the criteria is worth noting.

The criteria for placing drivers OOS for log falsification have been clarified to address situations where a record is falsified so much that the officer can’t determine when the driver was driving and/or resting. Drivers will be cited for violating 49 CFR 395.8(e)(2) and placed OOS for 10 hours (or 8 hours for passenger carriers) for ELD tampering that makes the entire record suspect. Officers will continue to cite 395.8(e)(1) for false logs when the officer can determine rest periods and drive time, and will place drivers OOS “until such time as eligibility to drive is re-established.”

Update categories

Changes were made to the following categories. Find more details at CVSA’s 2026 Out-of-Service Criteria.

For drivers

• ELD tampering
• English-language proficiency violations
• License-restriction violations
• In-state-restricted drivers
• Alcohol content threshold 

For vehicles

• Air connections
• Brake pad thickness
• Parking brakes
• Log securement
• Wire rope
• Upper couplers
• Rims
• Wheel hub lubricant
• Emergency exit markings
• Placarding

No DACH account

The annual list of DOT audit violations consistently shows failure to register with the DACH as a top 10 citation.

Some violations result from misunderstanding who needs an account. Motor carriers subject to 49 CFR Part 382 must register. It’s not optional. Without this account, motor carriers are unable to access the portal to request and report data.

Failing to request queries

Each year, the DOT cites carriers that fail to request pre-employment and/or annual DACH queries. The two citations regularly appear in the top 10 audit violations.

Queries are vital to learn whether a driver is prohibited from operating your commercial motor vehicle (CMV) due to an unresolved DOT drug and/or alcohol violation. These same queries also provide details on completed return-to-duty and follow-up programs.

Without this information, you can’t be sure who is operating your CMV.

Not reporting data

The DACH is only as accurate as the data provided. If responsible parties fail to report specific information, a driver’s record isn’t accurate when an employer or enforcement official looks it up.

The medical review officer (MRO) reports on failed drug tests and certain refusal-to-test scenarios.

Employers (or C/TPAs) report items that the MRO doesn’t, including:

• Alcohol tests .04 BAC or greater;
• Refusals to take a required drug or alcohol test where the company makes the determination;
• Negative return-to-duty tests; and
• Completed follow-up testing programs.

Substance abuse professionals (SAPs) record completed evaluations and treatment on the driver’s record.

If the information isn’t provided or is provided late, unqualified drivers may be behind the wheel. Or those who have been rehabilitated may appear unqualified.

Not understanding query results

It’s important to notice all the details in the DACH driver report. When a limited query result shows a driver has a DOT testing violation, the carrier must request a full query. A limited query only shows whether the driver has a record of a previous violation. The full query shows details.

There are key data elements to check on a full query result. When examining a full query, the first step is to check the driver’s status: prohibited or not prohibited.

If prohibited, do you see:

• An SAP initial evaluation?
• A second SAP evaluation indicating eligibility for a return-to-duty test?

These details let you know whether the SAP program was started.

If not prohibited, the query results show:

• The SAP evaluation entries,
• An employer’s entry of a negative return-to-duty test, and
• The follow-up testing program status.

If the follow-up testing shows:

• Completed, a former employer entered this milestone. No additional actions are required of current or future employers regarding this violation.
• Incomplete, the driver is still subject to remaining follow-up tests.

If this is a new hire with a not prohibited status and an incomplete follow-up testing program, the new employer must contact the former employer(s) for details on the follow-up testing.

If the driver is prohibited, their CDL has been or is about to be downgraded. This must be reinstated prior to operating CMVs again

Misunderstanding non-CDL CMV implications

A CDL or CLP holder who is in a prohibited status will have the DACH flagged on their driving record. Even though the state only downgrades the commercial class license, there’s another ramification.

The regulations (382.501(c)) prevent the driver from operating any CMV, including a CMV as defined in 390.5. This general definition includes both CDL and non-CDL CMV types. As a result, the driver is unable to operate a non-CDL CMV in interstate commerce until the DACH status changes to not prohibited or the driver voluntarily surrenders their CDL.

Key to remember: The DACH may seem more administrative than safety-related to some. But failure to follow through with the required recordkeeping could result in an impaired driver operating your vehicle.

5 questions to address

Motor carriers and operators who drive small vehicles should work through the five questions below to determine whether federal or state regulations apply — and whether it’s time to dig deeper or seek professional guidance.

1. Does the vehicle operate interstate or intrastate?

Interstate commerce includes transportation that’s part of a larger trip that begins or ends in another state. Prearranged transportation to or from an airport is one example, even if the vehicle itself never leaves the state.

Intrastate commerce, by contrast, stays entirely within one state and isn’t connected to an interstate journey. Intrastate shuttle operations, however, may still be regulated under state motor carrier safety rules that closely mirror federal requirements.

2. How many passengers is the vehicle designed to carry?

In interstate commerce, the FMCSRs apply to vehicles designed or used to transport 9–15 passengers, including the driver, when compensation is involved. Vehicles designed to carry more than 15 passengers, including the driver, are considered CMVs regardless of compensation.

Importantly, removing seats doesn’t change the vehicle’s original design rating.

3. What is the vehicle’s weight?

Weight can trigger regulation even when passenger count or compensation doesn’t. If a vehicle has a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) or actual weight of 10,001 pounds or more, it may be subject to the FMCSRs regardless of passenger capacity or whether anyone is paying for the ride.

States differ in how weight thresholds are used for intrastate regulation, so operators should confirm how state CMV definitions apply to their fleets.

4. Is it a ‘for-hire’ operation?

For‑hire passenger carriers transport passengers for direct or indirect compensation as follows:

Direct compensation: This includes fares, tickets, or payments made on the passenger’s behalf, including donations.

Indirect compensation: This occurs when transportation is bundled into a larger service or package, such as lodging, tours, or event admissions.

For interstate vehicles designed for 9–15 passengers, compliance obligations are as follows:

Operations involving direct compensation or vehicles weighing 10,001 pounds or more must:

1. Register with the FMCSA;
2. Display a USDOT number; and
3. Comply with driver qualification, hours‑of‑service, and maintenance rules.

Operations involving indirect compensation only using vehicles under 10,001 pounds must:

1. Register and display a USDOT number,
2. Maintain accident records, and
3. Comply with texting and handheld mobile phone prohibitions.

5. Is the shuttle operation private?

Private motor carriers of passengers (PMCPs) don’t charge fees, but are divided into two categories:

1. PMCP Business: These are companies that operate employee shuttles and must comply with most FMCSRs but are exempt from federal insurance requirements.
2. PMCP Non Business: These include such groups as churches or charities. They must operate safely and meet basic FMCSR requirements but are exempt from many recordkeeping and administrative rules.
   • These exemptions include:
     • Insurance requirements;
     • Driver qualification files;
     • Medical examinations (while still meeting minimum physical standards);
     • Logs, though hours‑of‑service limits still apply; and
     • Maintenance records and driver vehicle inspection reports.

From awareness to action

To confirm if the FMCSRs or state safety regulations apply to a shuttle operation, these steps can reduce risk:

• Consult a regulatory expert.
• Conduct an audit internally or through a third party.
• Develop an action plan, assign ownership, and reassess compliance regularly.

Key to remember: Knowing when federal or state rules apply to a shuttle operation is essential to minimizing enforcement exposure, liability risk, and operational disruption.

What to do after an inspection or ticket

After an inspection, keep a copy of the roadside inspection report and any citation. Make sure repairs are completed promptly and that any required certification/proof of correction is submitted within 15 days per the instructions on the report.

If you believe inspection data is incorrect (wrong vehicle/carrier, violation doesn’t apply, etc.), be sure to submit a “Request for Data Review” using the DataQs system.

Key to remember: Roadcheck and other enforcement activities can result in a variety of tickets, citations, and other consequences, with varying impact on CSA scores. Be sure you know the differences between them.

Concurrency

Many of the state laws allow the time off to run concurrently with FMLA leave, when:

• The employer is covered by both,
• The employee meets the eligibility criteria for both, and
• The reason qualifies for both.

When the leave runs concurrently, employers have to comply with both laws. A state law could have specific employer requirements, and employers have to meet them. That could involve giving employees certain information. The Colorado Family and Medical Leave Insurance (FAMLI), for example, requires employers to not only post the program notice in a prominent location, but it also requires employers to give employees written notice of the program upon hiring and when learning of an employee experiencing an event that triggers the employee’s eligibility.

Under the FMLA, when employees put the employer on notice of the need for leave, employers must give the employee an eligibility/rights & responsibilities notice within five business days. Once employers have enough information to determine if the absence qualifies for FMLA protections (such as from a certification), employers have five business days to give the employee a designation notice.

Employers can't overlook those FMLA steps, even if they seem redundant with state requirements.

Risks

If employers fail to designate an absence as FMLA leave, they may retroactively designate it only if doing so doesn’t cause harm or injury to the employee. If so, employers can’t retroactively designate it, which could result in the employee having more than the 12 weeks of FMLA leave.

Employers that don’t comply with the FMLA’s notice requirements can risk fines and penalties, even if the employers gave the employee the 12 workweeks of leave and the employee suffered no actual harm.

Therefore, overlooking the FMLA would not only risk violations but would also add another layer of unnecessary complexity.

Key to remember: Employers need to remember to comply with the federal FMLA’s requirements in addition to a state’s requirements.

The story

As an agency manager, Jerry supervised a team of insurance agents. The employer classified all agency managers, including Jerry, as independent contractors. Jerry:

• Set his own schedule,
• Decided how many hours he worked every day, and
• Had no obligation to track his time, and
• Didn’t have to disclose to the company the hours he worked.

The employer didn’t supervise Jerry’s hours worked or his completion of daily tasks. The employer paid Jerry a commission for policies sold and renewed.

In November 2019, Jerry sued the employer, challenging his classification as an independent contractor. Claiming to be an employee of the company, he sought unpaid overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The court’s ruling

Bad news for the employer: The court ruled that it should have classified Jerry as an employee (not an independent contractor) and that he had worked at least 816 hours of overtime. The bigger issue, however, was whether or not the employer knew about Jerry’s extra hours worked.

Jerry argued that the employer owed him overtime pay because it “suffered” or “permitted” him to work as much as he wanted. Because the employer allowed him to work unlimited hours, Jerry argued that the employer’s knowledge of his overtime work was irrelevant.

The court disagreed. Allowing Jerry to work as much as he wanted can’t mean the employer automatically owed him for any time he happened to work overtime, regardless of the employer's knowledge of those overtime hours. Rather, employees claiming to be entitled to overtime pay must be able to prove that employers knew employees were working overtime.

Employers don’t need to be clairvoyant

Employees must notify employers when they’re working extra hours. If employers neither knew nor had reason to believe that overtime work was being performed, that time doesn’t constitute “hours worked” under the FLSA.

The employer in this case didn’t know, or should have known, about Jerry’s overtime.

Jerry then argued that the employer should have known because it made “no effort” to record his time despite an alleged legal requirement to do so. This lack of a timekeeping system, he claimed, showed the employer’s failure to exercise “reasonable diligence” to find out about his overtime. Jerry went on to say that he had no “common-law” duty to notify the employer of his overtime; his only duty was to comply with the company’s timekeeping system, which didn’t exist.

The court again disagreed with Jerry on these two points:

1. It was his burden to show the employer knew he was working overtime.
2. An employer’s failure to maintain a timekeeping system in itself doesn’t mean the employer should have known about an employee’s overtime work.

The employer didn’t require agency managers to track their time, nor did it pay them hourly. Consequently, it had no reason to think of Jerry’s work in terms of “regular time” versus “overtime” hours.

Meritt v. Texas Farm Bureau et al., Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 24-50127, February 6, 2026.

Key to remember: The FLSA doesn’t require employers to pay overtime if employees don’t tell them about it.

Combustible dust

The Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB) released a new video examining a fatal combustible dust explosion/fire. Five employees at a Wisconsin corn mill were killed and 14 others were injured. Board Member Sylvia Johnson states, “The CSB has been calling for a comprehensive [OSHA] standard on combustible dust for many years to help prevent tragic, deadly incidents like [this] one … from continuing to occur. Robust regulation is absolutely essential to keep these incidents from happening in the future.”

First aid and eye, face, and head protection

Nine safety organizations petitioned OSHA urging the agency to adopt more modern consensus standards. Those standards include:

• ANSI/ISEA Z308.1-2026, -2019, and -2014 — American National Standard for Minimum Requirements for Workplace First Aid Kits and Supplies;
• ANSI/ISEA Z87.1-2025, -2020, and -2015 — American National Standard for Occupational and Educational Personal Eye and Face Protection Devices; and
• ANSI/ISEA Z89.1-2026, -2019, and -2014 — American National Standard for Industrial Head Protection.

The petition argues that the suggested updates to 29 CFR 1910 would not add compliance costs. Rather, the changes would offer employers greater choices in first aid kits and personal protective equipment, while improving safety, the organizations contend.

Workplace violence

A recent report from the Department of Labor Office of Inspector General states that OSHA could “enhance its efforts to address workplace violence, which may include taking regulatory action.” OSHA currently uses the General Duty Clause (not a regulation) for enforcement of work violence hazards.

The Inspector General says it will audit the effectiveness of the General Duty Clause in OSHA’s enforcement of workplace violence. The latest Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data show that 9.3 percent of all work fatalities in 2024 were attributed to homicide.

A Workplace Violence in Healthcare and Social Assistance proposed rule is on OSHA’s long-term agenda.

Musculoskeletal disorders, heat, and more

Federal lawmakers are moving to force OSHA to issue regulatory rulemaking to protect American workers. The House and Senate have ten bills on the table so far. Topics addressed by these Congressional bills include musculoskeletal disorders, heat stress, infectious diseases, wildfire smoke, and workplace violence. See our previous article, “9 OSHA bills to mandate gap-closing rules, wider coverage, steeper fines,” dated February 3, 2026. One bill was added after the issuance of that article.

Healthcare, transportation, warehousing, retail, and manufacturing injuries/illnesses

According to a new OSHA report, four industries, together, reported over 85 percent of all the injury and illness incidents tallied in data submitted under 29 CFR 1904.41 for 2024. Those included:

• Healthcare and social assistance,
• Transportation and warehousing,
• Retail trade, and
• Manufacturing.

The “2024 Annual Report: Work-related Injuries and Illnesses” also put a spotlight on three safety and health topics:

• Robotics in the manufacturing sector,
• Meat processing industry, and
• Young workers.

Transportation incidents

Transportation incidents continued to be the most frequent type of fatal event, per BLS data posted last month. These incidents accounted for 38.2 percent of all work fatalities in 2024. This is an uptick from the 36.8 percent reported in 2023. The good news is roadway incidents involving motorized land vehicles dropped 8.5 percent. The figure plummeted to 1,146 in 2024 from 1,252 in 2023. Roadway incidents still made up over one-in-five fatal work incidents in 2024.

In mid-January last year, OSHA said it wanted employers to “make safety a core principle by integrating safe driving and transportation practices into their businesses' safety and health management systems.” The idea was to foster a culture of safety and preventive practices to protect workers on the nation's roads. The statement was part of a joint initiative with the National Safety Council and the Road to Zero Coalition. The agency pointed to its Motor Vehicle Safety webpage.

While transportation incidents persist as the number one source of work fatalities, the 2025 BLS data, which should be issued in December 2026, may reveal whether OSHA’s joint-initiative efforts are making a dent.

Key to remember

Several forces are nudging OSHA to address a number of workplace hazards and high-hazard industries. Each points to a different safety and health concern, competing for OSHA’s bandwidth.

FMLA certification basics

Employers aren’t required to use certifications, but if they do, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) has five different certification forms to use for various FMLA leave situations.

The forms are as follows:

1. Certification of Health Care Provider for Employee's Serious Health Condition,
2. Certification of Health Care Provider for Family Member's Serious Health Condition,
3. Certification of Qualifying Exigency for Military Family Leave,
4. Certification for Serious Injury or Illness of a Current Servicemember for Military Family Leave, and
5. Certification for Serious Injury or Illness of a Veteran for Military Family Leave.

Let’s focus on the first two, as these are the most common ones HR administrators use.

Who can fill out an FMLA certification?

The FMLA regulations describe the person who has the authority to fill out a certification as a “health care provider.” The good news is, the regulations include a lengthy list of medical professionals who fit this role.

Under the FMLA, a health care provider includes:

• A doctor of medicine or osteopathy,
• A podiatrist,
• A dentist,
• A clinical psychologist,
• An optometrist,
• A chiropractor (limited to manual manipulation of the spine as demonstrated by X-ray),
• A nurse practitioner,
• A nurse midwife,
• A clinical social worker,
• A physician assistant,
• A Christian Science practitioner, and
• Any health care provider from whom the employer or the employer's group health plan's benefits manager will accept a medical certification to substantiate a claim for benefits.

To be qualified to fill out FMLA forms, medical professionals must be authorized to practice in the state and perform within the scope of their practice. This means that the provider must be authorized to diagnose and treat physical or mental health conditions.

What about doctors in a foreign country?

If an employee or an employee's family member is visiting another country, or a family member resides in another country, and a serious health condition develops, the employer must accept a medical certification from a health care provider who practices in that country. This includes second and third opinions.

If a medical certification from a foreign health care provider is not in English, the employee may be required to provide a written translation of the certification.

Key to remember: The FMLA regulations spell out which medical professionals can fill out certification forms.

Electrical safety and control measures

Electrical hazards affect more than just electricians. In fact, 74 percent of workplace electrical fatalities occur in non-electrical occupations, including tree trimming, HVAC, roofing, and painting. Many employees may not be trained to perform electrical work. That means they may not recognize electrical hazards.

An OSHA toolbox talk (OSHA 4496) outlines how to prevent injury when using electrical equipment. Specifically, it suggests that you employ the hierarchy of controls: elimination/substitution, engineering controls, administrative controls, personal protective equipment, and work practices.

Extension cords: 5 things to know

OSHA’s requirements for flexible cords and cables, at 29 CFR 1910.305(g), were cited nearly 1,300 times last fiscal year, according to OSHA enforcement data. A new publication (OSHA 4495) explains the top five things you and your employees should know about using extension cords safely.

Grain safety poster

Suffocation and falls are the two leading causes of death at grain handling facilities. Other hazards include fire, explosions, electrocution, and injuries from improperly guarded machinery. Exposures to grain dust and associated airborne contaminants can also occur. Such contaminants might include molds, chemical fumigants, and gases from decaying and/or fermenting sileage.

Each year, OSHA partners with several organizations to sponsor Stand Up 4 Grain Safety Week. The event takes place March 30 to April 3 this year. A printable poster (OSHA 3967) highlights the event and lists seven steps to grain safety.

Silica hazards in countertop work

OSHA and NIOSH have identified exposure to silica as a serious health hazard to workers. These workers might be involved in manufacturing, finishing, and installing natural and engineered stone countertop products. However, the respirable crystalline silica hazard can be mitigated in most countertop operations with dust control methods. These are spelled out in OSHA’s silica standards for general industry (29 CFR 1910.1053) and construction (29 CFR 1926.1153).

An OSHA/NIOSH Hazard Alert (OSHA 3768) explains silica hazards in the stone countertop industry, why it’s a concern, how to protect workers and control exposure, and more.

Responding to OSHA inquiries on complaints and referrals

A call from OSHA asking about alleged hazards reported in a complaint or referral can be stressful. Knowing what’s involved can help you prepare. The agency says it will work with you to address the matter through a timely and adequate response. According to OSHA, if the issues are resolved through this process, an onsite inspection is generally not conducted.

A fact sheet (OSHA 4498) for small employers outlines the inquiry process from initial contact to resolution, tells you what happens at each step, and provides best practices for a safe and successful outcome.

Key to remember: Several new OSHA publications provide guidance and information on a variety of topics, from electrical safety to the OSHA inquiry process.

Hidden in plain sight

When Sebastian walked into the office each morning, no one could see the weight he carried. Deadlines were met, meetings attended, yet his smile never faltered. Inside, stress and anxiety were taking a toll, and his story isn’t unique.

One study showed a very interesting contrast: most employees (about 77%) stated they were comfortable supporting a coworker’s mental health. However, when it comes to their own stress or burnout, 42% worry that opening up about it or seeking help could hurt their career or make them a target. Even more striking, one in four have thought about quitting because of mental health challenges. And it’s not just long-term stress. A recent Gallup poll found that 41% of workers felt highly stressed just “yesterday.”

These statistics underscore a troubling theme that employees value and wish to nurture mental wellness; however, stigma, insufficient support, and overwhelming stress persist. Employers need to begin recognizing and proactively addressing workplace mental health in order to cultivate resilient, productive teams.

What one state is doing

The state of Michigan is piloting a new initiative aimed at improving workplace mental health which is increasingly being recognized as an occupational safety and health issue. This expands the state’s historically stringent approach to reducing on-the-job risks.

Michigan’s LEADS program—short for Learn, Educate, Act, Deploy, Study—is a four-month initiative designed to give employers practical tools to tackle stress, burnout, and communication breakdowns that often lead to safety incidents. The idea is simple: when communication falters and stress goes unchecked, mistakes happen. Those mistakes can mean more human errors, higher injury rates, quiet quitting, and turnover.

One of the program’s key features is an evidence-based organizational assessment. Think of it like a safety audit that’s focused on mental health risks rather than physical hazards. Employers get a clear picture of issues such as heavy workloads, unclear roles, workplace conflict or bullying, and weak support systems that can quickly erode a strong safety culture.

The end goal of the LEADS program is not to replace existing safety programs but rather strengthen them. Consider joining Michigan in their effort to enhance communication, better define workers’ roles, support unfettered reporting, and more effectively engage employees.

Key to remember: Stress doesn’t just weigh people down; it can have significant safety and productivity consequences. Programs like Michigan’s LEADS pilot initiative are giving employers the ability to tackle stress and burnout before they lead to mistakes, injuries, or turnover.

Background

In August 2015, OSHA announced a new “high-penalty map.” The agency remarked, “For the first time, this map shows high-penalty cases in states that operate under federal OSHA as well as in states that operate under OSHA-approved state plans.” An alternative “table view” was also available. It could be sorted by initial penalty amount, date, case number, employer name, state, and city.

Fast forward to today, an OSHA spokesperson tells J. J. Keller® Compliance Network, “The ‘Enforcement Cases with Initial Penalties of $40,000 or Above’ page was discontinued and removed (in December 2025) as it was no longer going to be updated … Data found on https://www.osha.gov/data is what is available.”

The spokesperson adds, “We do not have webpages on enforcement cases with specific dollars amounts, except the ‘Top Enforcement Cases in History Based on Total Issued Penalty’ webpage.” That historical page highlights only 25 cases since 1988. Each one amounts to $2.89 million to $81.3 million in initial penalties.

Data are not lost

While the data have disappeared from OSHA’s Data page, they’re archived here, here, here, and here. Frozen in time, the data reveals 15,797 cases spanning from January 1, 2015, to June 20, 2025.

The introduction to the $40,000 or Above page said the data “includes citations issued starting January 1, 2015.” The table view tallies 16,119 cases. However, 322 of them had an issuance date prior to 2015, and we do not analyze them here.

Some employers are listed more than once if they had more than one penalty case at or over $40,000.

Top high-penalty cases

Single inspections with the highest initial penalty figures include:

1. $4.13 million for an auto parts manufacturer in Nevada.
2. $2.89 million for an auto parts manufacturer in Ohio.
3. $2.81 million for a frozen food manufacturer in Illinois.
4. $2.51 million for an auto parts manufacturer in Alabama.
5. $2.47 million for a sawmill in Alabama.
6. $2.03 million for a fruit farm in Washington state.
7. $1.92 million for a meat processor in Ohio.
8. $1.92 million for a metal-product manufacturer in New Jersey.
9. $1.86 million for a utility construction company in North Dakota.
10. $1.84 million for a milk manufacturer in Washington state.
11. $1.84 million for a long-distance trucking company in Washington state.

Most inspections did not reach millions of dollars

The majority (about 79 percent) of inspections on the list have under $100,000 in initial penalties:

• 0.2 percent ranged from $1 million to over $4.13 million.
• 0.5 percent ranged from $500,000 to under $1 million.
• 5 percent ranged from $200,000 to under $500,000.
• Almost 16 percent ranged from $100,000 to under $200,000.
• Almost 14 percent ranged from $75,000 to under $100,000.
• Almost 65 percent ranged from $40,000 to under $75,000.

“Initial penalty” amounts are not necessarily the current penalty amounts. Some cases might have even ended up with a final total penalty under $40,000.

Number of high-penalty cases per month

Taking the number of high-penalty cases in a year and dividing by the number of months gives us a case rate per month. The case rate increased over the 10.5-year period. This may be associated with the maximum civil penalties at 29 CFR 1903.15 that were increased annually per 28 U.S.C. 2461 statutory notes. Yet, you’ll see the rate of high-penalty cases decreases during the pandemic and last year:

• 2015 — 82.9 cases per month.
• 2016 —101.5 cases per month.
• 2017 —122.25 cases per month.
• 2018 —126.9 cases per month.
• 2019 —131.4 cases per month.
• 2020 —97.3 cases per month.
• 2021 —108.8 cases per month.
• 2022 —128.4 cases per month.
• 2023 —170.2 cases per month.
• 2024 —180.5 cases per month.
• 2025 —140.1 cases per month.

States with the most high-penalty cases

Thirteen states had the greatest number of cases at or over $40,000 in initial penalties. They made up over 70 percent of all high-penalty cases on the list:

1. California with about 1,850 cases.
2. Ohio with about 1,530 cases.
3. Texas with about 1,280 cases.
4. New Jersey with about 1,190 cases.
5. Illinois with about 1,000 cases.
6. Florida with about 630 cases.
7. New York with about 620 cases.
8. Georgia with about 560 cases.
9. Wisconsin with about 560 cases.
10. Pennsylvania with about 550 cases.
11. Massachusetts with about 500 cases.
12. Washington state with about 500 cases.
13. Missouri with about 380 cases.

The remaining states and territories had under 300 high-penalty cases each.

Key to remember

Data for the over $40,000-plus penalty cases slid off the OSHA Data page. The agency says it discontinued and removed it in December. The data is frozen and archived elsewhere.