The order criticized the ETS for not making an attempt to “account for differences in workplaces (and workers) that have more than a little bearing on workers’ varying degrees of susceptibility to the supposedly ‘grave danger’ the purports to address.” The order went on to question whether OSHA has shown a “grave danger” and that the ETS is “necessary.” The order concluded that petitioners are entitled to a stay because (1) they are likely to succeed on the merits and are suffering irreparable harm, (2) a stay pending adequate judicial review of the underlying motion for permanent injunction will not harm OSHA, and (3) the public interest favors a stay. The order found the ETS “imposes a financial burden upon by deputizing their participation in OSHA’s regulatory scheme, exposes them to severe financial risk if they refuse or fail to comply, and threatens to decimate their workforces (and business prospects) by forcing unwilling employees to take their shots, take their tests, or hit the road.” It further stated that the Occupational Safety and Health Act was not intended to allow the agency to make sweeping pronouncements on matters of public health. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) issued on November 4, 2021. On November 12, 2021, a three-member panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued a sweeping order continuing its initial November 6, 2021, stay of the emergency temporary standard (ETS) that the U.S.
0 kommentar(er)
