76 N.Y.2d 511 (1990)
The Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) does not preempt state criminal laws from prosecuting employers for conduct, even in the workplace, that violates generally applicable criminal statutes.
Summary
Pymm Thermometer Corporation (PTC) and Pak Glass Machinery Corporation, along with their officers, William and Edward Pymm, were convicted of several crimes related to unsafe working conditions involving mercury exposure. The defendants argued that OSHA preempted the state criminal prosecution. The New York Court of Appeals held that OSHA does not preempt state criminal laws. The court reasoned that state criminal laws are not “occupational safety and health standards” under OSHA, and the Act’s savings clause preserves state statutory and common-law rights and duties. State criminal laws serve a broader purpose of protecting all citizens and deterring intolerable conduct, which is consistent with but distinct from OSHA’s goals.
Facts
PTC manufactured thermometers, using mercury. Pak Glass serviced PTC’s machinery. Mercury contamination was an ongoing problem at PTC, posing a health risk to employees. Inspections revealed inadequate worker protection from mercury poisoning. In 1985, OSHA discovered a clandestine mercury reclamation operation in PTC’s basement, initially denied by William Pymm. Vidal Rodriguez, an employee, processed broken thermometers in a poorly ventilated area, resulting in mercury exposure and neurological damage. Mercury vapor readings were almost five times the permissible level. Rodriguez developed neurological symptoms consistent with mercury poisoning.
Procedural History
The defendants were charged with conspiracy, falsifying business records, assault, and reckless endangerment. The jury found them guilty on all counts. The trial court set aside the verdict, finding preemption by OSHA and insufficient evidence for conspiracy and reckless endangerment. The Appellate Division reversed the trial court’s order and reinstated the verdict. This appeal followed.
Issue(s)
Whether the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) preempts a state’s ability to enforce its general criminal laws against employers for conduct in the workplace that violates those laws.
Holding
No, because OSHA does not expressly or impliedly preempt state criminal laws, as these laws serve a broader purpose than workplace safety standards and the Act’s savings clause preserves state authority.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals determined that OSHA does not expressly preempt state criminal laws. Section 18(b) of the Act relates to the development and enforcement of standards, not general criminal laws. The court reasoned that New York’s criminal laws are not “occupational safety and health standards” because they do not dictate specific workplace conditions or practices. Instead, they are triggered by unacceptable acts, reflecting society’s condemnation of certain behavior. The court emphasized that state criminal laws protect all citizens, including workers, and deter morally repugnant conduct. The existence of section 4(b)(4), which preserves state common-law and statutory rights, duties, and liabilities, further suggests that Congress did not intend to preempt state criminal laws. The court found no implied preemption because Federal regulation does not occupy the entire field of occupational health and safety. The Act encourages states to assume responsibility for workplace safety, and section 18 allows states to reassert jurisdiction by submitting a state plan. State prosecution may cause employers to pay stricter attention to the promulgated standards by OSHA, which is consistent with the Act’s goal of ensuring “safe and healthful working conditions”. The court also noted that the limited civil and criminal penalties within OSHA argue against its preemption of state criminal law, which can supplement Federal regulations with appropriate criminal sanctions. Uniformity was not Congress’s primary goal; instead, Congress intended to ensure a minimum level of workplace safety that states could supplement. Finally, it is not impossible to comply with both state and federal law, and the state criminal prosecutions further the goals of ensuring the safety and health of American workers by deterring future instances of criminally culpable employer conduct.