Possibly in response to the Supreme Court’s decision ending the Chevron doctrine, and in line with broader efforts to limit regulatory authority, OSHA is expected to narrow its application of the general duty clause.

The general duty clause requires employers to provide a workplace free of recognized hazards not addressed by a specific standard.

OSHA wants to exclude hazards that are “inherent and inseparable from the court nature” of job. While the agency cites examples like extreme sports and animal handling, the proposed change is not limited to those sectors. This shift could also have far-reaching implications for industries such as emergency response, where some risks are intrinsic to the work and cannot be fully eliminated without fundamentally altering job functions.

As we await OSHA’s formal reinterpretation of the clause, employers may find themselves focusing more on compliance with clearly written standards rather than navigating shifting expectations based on informal agency guidance. In the post-Chevron landscape, regulatory clarity and statutory precision will be more important than ever.

OSHA seeks to alter the application of the general duty clause so that employers’ aren’t required to remove hazards from inherently risky activities that are integral to the essential function of the work. Worker advocates said this could be harmful to OSHA’s ability to hold employers accountable for addressing hazards such as heat or ergonomics—both recognized hazards the agency doesn’t have an applicable standard to address.

news.bloomberglaw.com/...