FROM: U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
Monday, August 19, 2013
Federal Court Permanently Bars Indiana Instant Tax Service Franchisee from Tax Preparation
A federal court in Indianapolis permanently barred David Franklin and his company, Instant Refund Tax Service (IRTS), from preparing tax returns and from operating a tax-preparation business, the Justice Department announced today. The government alleged that IRTS, which Franklin wholly owns, operated as a franchisee of Instant Tax Service, a large national tax-preparation franchisor operated by ITS Financial LLC, based in Dayton, Ohio. The order follows an earlier preliminary injunction against the defendants. In a separate case, a federal court in Ohio preliminarily enjoined the Dayton-based franchisor last November. The defendants in both cases consented to entry of the preliminary injunctions without admitting the allegations against them.
The Indiana permanent injunction order was signed by Judge Sarah Evans Barker of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. The government complaint in the case alleged that Franklin owned and operated 22 Instant Tax Service locations that prepared and filed false and fraudulent income tax returns for customers, fabricated income for phony businesses to obtain larger tax credits, forged W-2 forms, filed returns improperly based on paycheck stubs rather than W-2 forms, claimed false education tax credits and reported false filing statuses for customers. The government also accused Franklin’s offices of filing tax returns without customers’ authorization and selling false and deceptive loan products to customers.
The case is one of five similar civil actions that the Justice Department brought against Instant Tax Service franchises and the corporate franchisor, ITS Financial, which claims to be the fourth-largest tax-preparation firm in the nation. The court recently conducted a two-week trial in the Ohio case, in connection with the government’s request to permanently enjoin the Instant Tax Service franchisor. A decision has not yet been issued.
Saturday, August 24, 2013
Friday, August 23, 2013
OWNERS OF HEALTH CARE COMPANY SENTENCED FOR ROLES IN $17.1 MILLION FRAUD
FROM: U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
Thursday, August 15, 2013
Operators of Louisiana Home Health Company Sentenced for $17.1 Million Health Care Fraud Scheme
The owner of South Louisiana Home Health Care Inc. and the director of nursing for the Louisiana home health agency were sentenced today for their roles in a Medicare fraud scheme involving the payment of kickbacks and the falsification of documents.
Acting Assistant Attorney General Mythili Raman of the Criminal Division; Acting U.S. Attorney Walt Green of the Middle District of Louisiana; Special Agent in Charge Mike Fields of the Dallas Region of the HHS Office of the Inspector General (HHS-OIG); Special Agent in Charge Michael Anderson of the FBI’s New Orleans Division; and Louisiana State Attorney General James Buddy Caldwell made the announcement.
Louis T. Age Jr., 64, owned and operated South Louisiana Home Health Care and operated this company along with his former wife, Verna Age, 60, who served as the company’s director of nursing. Louis Age and Verna Age, both of Slidell, La., were sentenced today by U.S. District Judge James J. Brady of the Middle District of Louisiana to 180 months and 60 months in prison, respectively, and ordered to forfeit $9.2 million and pay $17.1 in restitution.
After a jury trial in March 2013, Louis Age and Verna Age each were convicted of one count of conspiracy to commit health care fraud, and Louis Age also was convicted of one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States and to pay or receive illegal health care kickbacks. Verna Age previously was convicted of one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States and to pay or receive illegal health care kickbacks after a jury trial in October 2012.
According to evidence presented at trial, Louis Age and Verna Age paid kickbacks to patient recruiters to obtain Medicare beneficiary information. Nurses, including registered nurse Verna Age, then falsified qualification documents to make it appear that these beneficiaries qualified for home health services. The evidence also showed that Louis Age hired and paid kickbacks to medical doctors to sign fraudulent referrals and certifications for home health services that were not medically necessary. Louis Age and Verna Age then used the Medicare beneficiary information and false documents to bill Medicare for the medically unnecessary home health services. From 2005 through 2011, Medicare paid South Louisiana Home Health Care approximately $17.1 million based on these fraudulent home health care claims.
This case was investigated by the FBI, HHS-OIG and Medicaid Fraud Control Unit of the Louisiana State Attorney General’s Office and was brought as part of the Medicare Fraud Strike Force, under supervision of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Louisiana. The case was prosecuted by Trial Attorneys David M. Maria and Abigail B. Taylor of the Fraud Section, with assistance from Trial Attorney Arunabha Bhoumik.
Since its inception in March 2007, the Medicare Fraud Strike Force, now operating in nine cities across the country, has charged more than 1,500 defendants who have collectively billed the Medicare program for more than $5 billion. In addition, HHS’s Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, working in conjunction with HHS-OIG, is taking steps to increase accountability and decrease the presence of fraudulent providers.
Thursday, August 15, 2013
Operators of Louisiana Home Health Company Sentenced for $17.1 Million Health Care Fraud Scheme
The owner of South Louisiana Home Health Care Inc. and the director of nursing for the Louisiana home health agency were sentenced today for their roles in a Medicare fraud scheme involving the payment of kickbacks and the falsification of documents.
Acting Assistant Attorney General Mythili Raman of the Criminal Division; Acting U.S. Attorney Walt Green of the Middle District of Louisiana; Special Agent in Charge Mike Fields of the Dallas Region of the HHS Office of the Inspector General (HHS-OIG); Special Agent in Charge Michael Anderson of the FBI’s New Orleans Division; and Louisiana State Attorney General James Buddy Caldwell made the announcement.
Louis T. Age Jr., 64, owned and operated South Louisiana Home Health Care and operated this company along with his former wife, Verna Age, 60, who served as the company’s director of nursing. Louis Age and Verna Age, both of Slidell, La., were sentenced today by U.S. District Judge James J. Brady of the Middle District of Louisiana to 180 months and 60 months in prison, respectively, and ordered to forfeit $9.2 million and pay $17.1 in restitution.
After a jury trial in March 2013, Louis Age and Verna Age each were convicted of one count of conspiracy to commit health care fraud, and Louis Age also was convicted of one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States and to pay or receive illegal health care kickbacks. Verna Age previously was convicted of one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States and to pay or receive illegal health care kickbacks after a jury trial in October 2012.
According to evidence presented at trial, Louis Age and Verna Age paid kickbacks to patient recruiters to obtain Medicare beneficiary information. Nurses, including registered nurse Verna Age, then falsified qualification documents to make it appear that these beneficiaries qualified for home health services. The evidence also showed that Louis Age hired and paid kickbacks to medical doctors to sign fraudulent referrals and certifications for home health services that were not medically necessary. Louis Age and Verna Age then used the Medicare beneficiary information and false documents to bill Medicare for the medically unnecessary home health services. From 2005 through 2011, Medicare paid South Louisiana Home Health Care approximately $17.1 million based on these fraudulent home health care claims.
This case was investigated by the FBI, HHS-OIG and Medicaid Fraud Control Unit of the Louisiana State Attorney General’s Office and was brought as part of the Medicare Fraud Strike Force, under supervision of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Louisiana. The case was prosecuted by Trial Attorneys David M. Maria and Abigail B. Taylor of the Fraud Section, with assistance from Trial Attorney Arunabha Bhoumik.
Since its inception in March 2007, the Medicare Fraud Strike Force, now operating in nine cities across the country, has charged more than 1,500 defendants who have collectively billed the Medicare program for more than $5 billion. In addition, HHS’s Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, working in conjunction with HHS-OIG, is taking steps to increase accountability and decrease the presence of fraudulent providers.
DOJ ANNOUNCES SETTLEMENT IN IMMIGRATION-RELATED DEISCRIMINATION CLAIM AGAINST SOS EMPLOYMENT GROUP
FROM: U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
Wednesday, August 14, 2013
Justice Department Settles Immigration-related Discrimination Claim Against SOS Employment Group
The Justice Department today reached an agreement with SOS Employment Group, based in Salt Lake City resolving claims that the company violated the anti-discrimination provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).
The department’s investigation confirmed allegations made by a work-authorized individual that SOS Employment Group had, at both initial hire and when subsequently re-verifying the refugee’s employment authorization, rejected the employee’s valid driver’s license and unrestricted Social Security card and required him to produce a Department of Homeland Security Employment Authorization Document (EAD). The department’s investigation further determined that SOS Employment’s documentary demands were based on the individual’s status as a non-U.S. citizen. The anti-discrimination provision of the INA, prohibits employers from using discriminatory documentary policies, procedures or requirements based on citizenship status or national origin when initially determining or subsequently re-verifying an employee’s authorization for employment.
Under the terms of the settlement agreement, SOS Employment Group has agreed to pay $9,157.50 in back pay to the victim and $1,200 in civil penalties to the United States, undergo Justice Department training on the anti-discrimination provision of the INA and be subject to monitoring of its employment eligibility verification practices for a period of one year.
“The INA’s anti-discrimination provision requires that the statute’s employment eligibility verification requirements be implemented in a nondiscriminatory manner without regard to citizenship status or national origin,” said Jocelyn Samuels, Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights. “The Civil Rights Division is fully committed to vigorously enforcing this important component of the INA.”
Wednesday, August 14, 2013
Justice Department Settles Immigration-related Discrimination Claim Against SOS Employment Group
The Justice Department today reached an agreement with SOS Employment Group, based in Salt Lake City resolving claims that the company violated the anti-discrimination provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).
The department’s investigation confirmed allegations made by a work-authorized individual that SOS Employment Group had, at both initial hire and when subsequently re-verifying the refugee’s employment authorization, rejected the employee’s valid driver’s license and unrestricted Social Security card and required him to produce a Department of Homeland Security Employment Authorization Document (EAD). The department’s investigation further determined that SOS Employment’s documentary demands were based on the individual’s status as a non-U.S. citizen. The anti-discrimination provision of the INA, prohibits employers from using discriminatory documentary policies, procedures or requirements based on citizenship status or national origin when initially determining or subsequently re-verifying an employee’s authorization for employment.
Under the terms of the settlement agreement, SOS Employment Group has agreed to pay $9,157.50 in back pay to the victim and $1,200 in civil penalties to the United States, undergo Justice Department training on the anti-discrimination provision of the INA and be subject to monitoring of its employment eligibility verification practices for a period of one year.
“The INA’s anti-discrimination provision requires that the statute’s employment eligibility verification requirements be implemented in a nondiscriminatory manner without regard to citizenship status or national origin,” said Jocelyn Samuels, Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights. “The Civil Rights Division is fully committed to vigorously enforcing this important component of the INA.”
Thursday, August 22, 2013
JUSTICE REACHES FAIR HOUSING SETTLEMENT WITH PROPERTY MANAGEMENT COMPANY, HOA
FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Tuesday, August 13, 2013
Justice Department Reaches Settlement with Homeowners Association and Property Management Company in Fair Housing Lawsuit Involving Occupancy Limits
The Justice Department announced today that the Townhomes of Kings Lake HOA Inc. (HOA) and Vanguard Management Group Inc. have agreed to pay $150,000 to settle a lawsuit alleging violations of the Fair Housing Act (FHA). The lawsuit alleged that the HOA adopted and both defendants enforced occupancy limits that discriminated against families with children at the Townhomes of Kings Lake, a 249-townhome community in Gibsonton, Fla.
Under the proposed consent decree, which must still be approved by the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, the defendants will pay $45,000 to the family that initiated the original complaint filed with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), $85,000 into a victim fund to compensate other aggrieved families, and $20,000 to the United States as a civil penalty. In addition, the proposed consent decree prohibits the defendants from discriminating in the future against families with children and requires the defendants to receive training on the requirements of the FHA. In January 2013, while the lawsuit was pending, the HOA modified its occupancy limits to permit four occupants in 2-bedroom townhomes, six occupants in 3-bedroom townhomes, and eight occupants in 4-bedroom townhomes.
“The Fair Housing Act ensures that families with children are not denied their housing rights based on discriminatory occupancy policies,” said Jocelyn Samuels, Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division. “The Justice Department will continue to vigorously enforce fair housing laws that protect the rights of families with children.”
The lawsuit, filed in October 2012, arose from a complaint filed with HUD by a family with six children that was living at the Townhomes of Kings Lake. After the family moved into their 4-bedroom townhome, the defendants indicated there was a problem with the number of people living in the home and threatened to evict the family. The family eventually moved out of the Kings Lake community. After HUD investigated the complaint, it issued a charge of discrimination and referred the matter to the Justice Department. The lawsuit alleged that the defendants violated the family’s rights, that the restrictive occupancy policies discriminated against other families with children, and that the defendants engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination or denied rights protected by the FHA to a group of persons.
“Twenty-plus years of HUD guidance and cases have put housing providers on notice that occupancy standards which unfairly limit or exclude families with children violate the Fair Housing Act,” said Bryan Greene, HUD’s Acting Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity. “HUD and the Department of Justice are committed to making sure that all people have equal access to the housing for which they financially qualify.”
Tuesday, August 13, 2013
Justice Department Reaches Settlement with Homeowners Association and Property Management Company in Fair Housing Lawsuit Involving Occupancy Limits
The Justice Department announced today that the Townhomes of Kings Lake HOA Inc. (HOA) and Vanguard Management Group Inc. have agreed to pay $150,000 to settle a lawsuit alleging violations of the Fair Housing Act (FHA). The lawsuit alleged that the HOA adopted and both defendants enforced occupancy limits that discriminated against families with children at the Townhomes of Kings Lake, a 249-townhome community in Gibsonton, Fla.
Under the proposed consent decree, which must still be approved by the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, the defendants will pay $45,000 to the family that initiated the original complaint filed with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), $85,000 into a victim fund to compensate other aggrieved families, and $20,000 to the United States as a civil penalty. In addition, the proposed consent decree prohibits the defendants from discriminating in the future against families with children and requires the defendants to receive training on the requirements of the FHA. In January 2013, while the lawsuit was pending, the HOA modified its occupancy limits to permit four occupants in 2-bedroom townhomes, six occupants in 3-bedroom townhomes, and eight occupants in 4-bedroom townhomes.
“The Fair Housing Act ensures that families with children are not denied their housing rights based on discriminatory occupancy policies,” said Jocelyn Samuels, Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division. “The Justice Department will continue to vigorously enforce fair housing laws that protect the rights of families with children.”
The lawsuit, filed in October 2012, arose from a complaint filed with HUD by a family with six children that was living at the Townhomes of Kings Lake. After the family moved into their 4-bedroom townhome, the defendants indicated there was a problem with the number of people living in the home and threatened to evict the family. The family eventually moved out of the Kings Lake community. After HUD investigated the complaint, it issued a charge of discrimination and referred the matter to the Justice Department. The lawsuit alleged that the defendants violated the family’s rights, that the restrictive occupancy policies discriminated against other families with children, and that the defendants engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination or denied rights protected by the FHA to a group of persons.
“Twenty-plus years of HUD guidance and cases have put housing providers on notice that occupancy standards which unfairly limit or exclude families with children violate the Fair Housing Act,” said Bryan Greene, HUD’s Acting Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity. “HUD and the Department of Justice are committed to making sure that all people have equal access to the housing for which they financially qualify.”
Wednesday, August 21, 2013
MSHA LAUNCHES ONLINE MINE OPERATOR ASSISTANCE TOOL
FROM: U.S. LABOR DEPARTMENT
MSHA launches new online tool to assist mine operators
ARLINGTON, Va. — The U.S. Department of Labor's Mine Safety and Health Administration today launched a new online tool for the mining industry. The S&S Rate Calculator enables mine operators who implement a corrective action program to determine if their mine is successfully reducing its significant and substantial, or S&S, violations.
S&S violations are violations of a mandatory health or safety standard that "significantly and substantially contributes to the cause and effect of a coal or other mine safety or health hazard."
The S&S Rate Calculator is an enhancement to the two-year-old Pattern of Violations Monitoring Tool, which allows mine operators, miners and stakeholders to measure a mine's performance against MSHA's specific screening criteria for violations. The S&S Rate Calculator allows users to determine a mine's rate of S&S violations for any specific date range. Users need only the mine's 7-digit ID number to find data.
"It is the mine operator's responsibility to track its violation and injury histories to determine whether it needs to take action to comply with mine safety laws, protect miners and not trigger a POV notice," said Joseph A. Main, assistant secretary of labor for mine safety and health. "Operators who implement a corrective action program can use this tool, which complements the POV monitoring tool, to track their progress and make sure a corrective action program is effectively addressing the mine's S&S rate."
MSHA published a final rule in January revising the POV regulation. The rule provides mine operators who may be approaching POV status the opportunity to implement a corrective action program, and MSHA may consider a mine operator's effective implementation of an MSHA-approved corrective action program as a mitigating circumstance in its POV review. For mines in POV status, each S&S violation will result in a withdrawal order until a complete inspection finds no S&S violations.
MSHA launches new online tool to assist mine operators
ARLINGTON, Va. — The U.S. Department of Labor's Mine Safety and Health Administration today launched a new online tool for the mining industry. The S&S Rate Calculator enables mine operators who implement a corrective action program to determine if their mine is successfully reducing its significant and substantial, or S&S, violations.
S&S violations are violations of a mandatory health or safety standard that "significantly and substantially contributes to the cause and effect of a coal or other mine safety or health hazard."
The S&S Rate Calculator is an enhancement to the two-year-old Pattern of Violations Monitoring Tool, which allows mine operators, miners and stakeholders to measure a mine's performance against MSHA's specific screening criteria for violations. The S&S Rate Calculator allows users to determine a mine's rate of S&S violations for any specific date range. Users need only the mine's 7-digit ID number to find data.
"It is the mine operator's responsibility to track its violation and injury histories to determine whether it needs to take action to comply with mine safety laws, protect miners and not trigger a POV notice," said Joseph A. Main, assistant secretary of labor for mine safety and health. "Operators who implement a corrective action program can use this tool, which complements the POV monitoring tool, to track their progress and make sure a corrective action program is effectively addressing the mine's S&S rate."
MSHA published a final rule in January revising the POV regulation. The rule provides mine operators who may be approaching POV status the opportunity to implement a corrective action program, and MSHA may consider a mine operator's effective implementation of an MSHA-approved corrective action program as a mitigating circumstance in its POV review. For mines in POV status, each S&S violation will result in a withdrawal order until a complete inspection finds no S&S violations.
Tuesday, August 20, 2013
JUSTICE DEPT. ANNOUNCES SETTLEMENT OF DISCRIMINATION CASE INVOLVING PROSPECTIVE SOMALI RENTERS
FROM: U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
Tuesday, August 13, 2013
Justice Department Resolves Lawsuit Alleging Discrimination on Basis of Race and National Origin in Minneapolis
The Justice Department today announced a settlement of its lawsuit alleging that Highland Management Group Inc., Edina Park Apartments LLC, and Amy Koch violated the Fair Housing Act (FHA) by discriminating against Somali prospective renters at Edina Park Apartments in Edina, Minn. a suburb of Minneapolis. After filing the complaint earlier today, the department submitted the settlement to U.S. District Court Judge Susan R. Nelson, in the form of a proposed consent decree.
The case originated based on evidence generated by the department’s Fair Housing Testing Program, in which individuals pose as prospective renters to gather information about possible discriminatory practices. The testing uncovered evidence that Amy Koch, who was the then property manager at Edina Park Apartments, showed white testers apartments when they walked in while she told Somali testers they had to make an appointment to see an apartment the next day. She also failed to tell Somali testers about certain apartments becoming available that she mentioned to white testers. Amy Koch was an employee of Highland Management Group, Inc.
“Treating people differently because of their race or national origin when they are looking for a place to live is a fundamental affront to American values,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General Jocelyn Samuels. “This settlement demonstrates that the Civil Rights Division Housing Testing Program is an important tool in combating discrimination.”
Under the settlement, Highland Management Group Inc. and Edina Park Apartments must pay $30,000 to the government as a civil penalty. The settlement also requires Highland Management Group, Inc. and Edina Park Apartments to maintain a nondiscrimination policy, provide employees with training on the requirements of the Fair Housing Act and provide periodic reports to the government.
U.S. Attorney B. Todd Jones said, “Everyone has the right to expect equal treatment under the law when searching for housing. The U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Attorney’s Office will work tirelessly to ensure that all people are treated fairly when attempting to secure housing for themselves and their families. It is what the good citizens of Minnesota expect and deserve.”
The federal Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination in housing based on race, color, religion, national origin, sex, disability and familial status.
Tuesday, August 13, 2013
Justice Department Resolves Lawsuit Alleging Discrimination on Basis of Race and National Origin in Minneapolis
The Justice Department today announced a settlement of its lawsuit alleging that Highland Management Group Inc., Edina Park Apartments LLC, and Amy Koch violated the Fair Housing Act (FHA) by discriminating against Somali prospective renters at Edina Park Apartments in Edina, Minn. a suburb of Minneapolis. After filing the complaint earlier today, the department submitted the settlement to U.S. District Court Judge Susan R. Nelson, in the form of a proposed consent decree.
The case originated based on evidence generated by the department’s Fair Housing Testing Program, in which individuals pose as prospective renters to gather information about possible discriminatory practices. The testing uncovered evidence that Amy Koch, who was the then property manager at Edina Park Apartments, showed white testers apartments when they walked in while she told Somali testers they had to make an appointment to see an apartment the next day. She also failed to tell Somali testers about certain apartments becoming available that she mentioned to white testers. Amy Koch was an employee of Highland Management Group, Inc.
“Treating people differently because of their race or national origin when they are looking for a place to live is a fundamental affront to American values,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General Jocelyn Samuels. “This settlement demonstrates that the Civil Rights Division Housing Testing Program is an important tool in combating discrimination.”
Under the settlement, Highland Management Group Inc. and Edina Park Apartments must pay $30,000 to the government as a civil penalty. The settlement also requires Highland Management Group, Inc. and Edina Park Apartments to maintain a nondiscrimination policy, provide employees with training on the requirements of the Fair Housing Act and provide periodic reports to the government.
U.S. Attorney B. Todd Jones said, “Everyone has the right to expect equal treatment under the law when searching for housing. The U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Attorney’s Office will work tirelessly to ensure that all people are treated fairly when attempting to secure housing for themselves and their families. It is what the good citizens of Minnesota expect and deserve.”
The federal Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination in housing based on race, color, religion, national origin, sex, disability and familial status.
Monday, August 19, 2013
STEEL COMPANY FACES OVER A $1 MILLION IN FINES FOR OSHA VIOLATIONS
FROM: U.S. LABOR DEPARTMENT
Republic Steel faces fines of $1.1 million for 24 safety violations; company previously agreed to address hazards in 2012 OSHA settlement
CANTON, Ohio — Republic Steel has been cited by the U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration for 24 safety violations carrying fines of $1,138,500. Fifteen willful violations of OSHA's fall protection standards were found at the company's Canton steel manufacturing plant.
OSHA received a formal complaint from the United Steelworkers Union alleging inadequate fall protection and other unsafe practices exposing workers to various hazards in the plant's melt shop. During the inspection, opened in February 2013, OSHA discovered that two workers had been seriously injured in falls at the site in June and August of 2012.
"People working hard to provide for their families should not have worry each day whether they'll come home," said Secretary of Labor Thomas E. Perez. "Republic Steel put their workers' lives in danger, and that kind of disregard for safety will not be tolerated."
The company has a history of failing to address fall hazards. In 2011, after an employee was seriously injured in a fall at the company's Lorain, Ohio, facility, OSHA issued willful citations to the company for fall hazards. In a settlement with OSHA in 2012, the company accepted three willful fall hazard violations at the Lorain plant and agreed to address fall protection at its plants, including the Canton plant.
"Republic Steel has a long history of OSHA violations and disregard for employee safety and health," said Dr. David Michaels, assistant secretary of labor for occupational safety and health. "It is unacceptable that Republic Steel has not taken more effective steps to improve safety at the Canton plant, particularly in light of a 2012 settlement aimed at exactly that. OSHA will remain diligent in its commitment to protect America's steel workers."
A total of 15 willful violations were cited for failing to provide fall protection in the Canton steel mill. Among the violations noted were lack of fall protection while working on the runway girders that were 66 feet above the ground and falls of 30 feet due to missing and damaged guardrails. Workers were also exposed to falls of up to 30 feet above the slag pit and falls of 20 feet above the electric arc furnace and molten steel ladle. A willful violation is one committed with intentional, knowing or voluntary disregard for the law's requirements, or plain indifference to employee safety and health.
One repeat violation was cited for failing to post danger signs or other effective means of indicating the existence and location of permit-required confined spaces in the melt shop. OSHA issues repeat violations if an employer previously was cited for the same or a similar violation of any standard, regulation, rule or order at any other facility in federal enforcement states within the last five years. The same violation was cited in August 2009 at the company's facility in Blasdell, N.Y.
Additionally, eight serious violations include tripping hazards, the use of electrical panels not suitable for wet locations, lack of personal protective equipment for employees working around the furnace, failing to evaluate potential hazards in confined spaces that employees might need to enter such as furnaces and duct work, and failure to train workers on hazards and issue entry permits for those spaces. A serious violation occurs when there is substantial probability that death or serious physical harm could result from a hazard about which the employer knew or should have known.
Republic Steel will remain in OSHA's Severe Violator Enforcement Program, which mandates targeted follow-up inspections to ensure compliance with the law. The company was placed in the program in 2011. OSHA's severe violator program focuses on recalcitrant employers that endanger workers by committing willful, repeat or failure-to-abate violations. Under the program, OSHA may inspect any of the employer's facilities if it has reasonable grounds to believe there are similar violations.
The company, which is headquartered in Canton, employs approximately 2,500 workers companywide and 600 at the Canton mill. Other Republic Steel mills are located in Massillon and Lorain, Ohio, and Blasdell, N.Y.
The Canton plant has been inspected by OSHA 16 times, which resulted in one willful, two repeat, 22 serious and 23 other-than-serious final order citations. As a corporate entity, Republic Steel has been inspected 79 times resulting in the issuance of six willful, 15 repeat, 145 serious and 70 other-than-serious final order citations.
The company has 15 business days from receipt of the citations and notice of proposed penalties to contest the citations and proposed penalties before the independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission. If the company does not file or contest within that period, it must abate the cited conditions within the period ordered in the citations and pay the proposed penalties.
Republic Steel faces fines of $1.1 million for 24 safety violations; company previously agreed to address hazards in 2012 OSHA settlement
CANTON, Ohio — Republic Steel has been cited by the U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration for 24 safety violations carrying fines of $1,138,500. Fifteen willful violations of OSHA's fall protection standards were found at the company's Canton steel manufacturing plant.
OSHA received a formal complaint from the United Steelworkers Union alleging inadequate fall protection and other unsafe practices exposing workers to various hazards in the plant's melt shop. During the inspection, opened in February 2013, OSHA discovered that two workers had been seriously injured in falls at the site in June and August of 2012.
"People working hard to provide for their families should not have worry each day whether they'll come home," said Secretary of Labor Thomas E. Perez. "Republic Steel put their workers' lives in danger, and that kind of disregard for safety will not be tolerated."
The company has a history of failing to address fall hazards. In 2011, after an employee was seriously injured in a fall at the company's Lorain, Ohio, facility, OSHA issued willful citations to the company for fall hazards. In a settlement with OSHA in 2012, the company accepted three willful fall hazard violations at the Lorain plant and agreed to address fall protection at its plants, including the Canton plant.
"Republic Steel has a long history of OSHA violations and disregard for employee safety and health," said Dr. David Michaels, assistant secretary of labor for occupational safety and health. "It is unacceptable that Republic Steel has not taken more effective steps to improve safety at the Canton plant, particularly in light of a 2012 settlement aimed at exactly that. OSHA will remain diligent in its commitment to protect America's steel workers."
A total of 15 willful violations were cited for failing to provide fall protection in the Canton steel mill. Among the violations noted were lack of fall protection while working on the runway girders that were 66 feet above the ground and falls of 30 feet due to missing and damaged guardrails. Workers were also exposed to falls of up to 30 feet above the slag pit and falls of 20 feet above the electric arc furnace and molten steel ladle. A willful violation is one committed with intentional, knowing or voluntary disregard for the law's requirements, or plain indifference to employee safety and health.
One repeat violation was cited for failing to post danger signs or other effective means of indicating the existence and location of permit-required confined spaces in the melt shop. OSHA issues repeat violations if an employer previously was cited for the same or a similar violation of any standard, regulation, rule or order at any other facility in federal enforcement states within the last five years. The same violation was cited in August 2009 at the company's facility in Blasdell, N.Y.
Additionally, eight serious violations include tripping hazards, the use of electrical panels not suitable for wet locations, lack of personal protective equipment for employees working around the furnace, failing to evaluate potential hazards in confined spaces that employees might need to enter such as furnaces and duct work, and failure to train workers on hazards and issue entry permits for those spaces. A serious violation occurs when there is substantial probability that death or serious physical harm could result from a hazard about which the employer knew or should have known.
Republic Steel will remain in OSHA's Severe Violator Enforcement Program, which mandates targeted follow-up inspections to ensure compliance with the law. The company was placed in the program in 2011. OSHA's severe violator program focuses on recalcitrant employers that endanger workers by committing willful, repeat or failure-to-abate violations. Under the program, OSHA may inspect any of the employer's facilities if it has reasonable grounds to believe there are similar violations.
The company, which is headquartered in Canton, employs approximately 2,500 workers companywide and 600 at the Canton mill. Other Republic Steel mills are located in Massillon and Lorain, Ohio, and Blasdell, N.Y.
The Canton plant has been inspected by OSHA 16 times, which resulted in one willful, two repeat, 22 serious and 23 other-than-serious final order citations. As a corporate entity, Republic Steel has been inspected 79 times resulting in the issuance of six willful, 15 repeat, 145 serious and 70 other-than-serious final order citations.
The company has 15 business days from receipt of the citations and notice of proposed penalties to contest the citations and proposed penalties before the independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission. If the company does not file or contest within that period, it must abate the cited conditions within the period ordered in the citations and pay the proposed penalties.
Sunday, August 18, 2013
CFTC COMMISSIONER O'MALIA'S STATEMENT ON SUBPOENA, TESTIMONY POWERS GIVEN TO DIVISION OF ENFORCEMENT
FROM: U.S. COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION
Dissenting Statement of Commissioner Scott D. O’Malia to the Division of Enforcement’s Request that the Commission Issue the Omnibus Order Designating Officers of the Division of Enforcement with the Authority to Issue Subpoena and Take Testimony
August 13, 2013
I decline to authorize issuance of the omnibus Investigation Order, delegating to the Division of Enforcement sweeping subpoena power to investigate possible [redacted] activities [redacted]. I objected to the issuance of a similar omnibus order, which expired on May 20, 2013. While I strongly support a robust enforcement regime, I object to the process of waiving the Commission’s power to authorize an investigation, especially in the post-Dodd-Frank environment.
As with the previous Order, this Order gives the Division of Enforcement far-reaching subpoena authority to investigate possible violations of the rules adopted pursuant to Dodd-Frank. Many of these investigations will involve new and untested laws. If delegated to staff, I am concerned that the Commission will be unaware of the full ramifications of the new laws. Therefore, it is crucially important for the Commission to assess the legal and factual bases for initiating investigations on a case-by-case basis, and not hand over this responsibility to the Division of Enforcement at this time.
But what I find even more troubling is that the Division of Enforcement seeks to circumvent the powers of the Commission as it proposes to bring investigations on a summary basis by utilizing an absent objection process. As I understand, the Division of Enforcement proposed the same process in an earlier request to issue an omnibus subpoena. Since that time, unbeknownst to me, the legal powers of the no-objection process have been reinterpreted by the Commission’s Office of the General Counsel. Now, I am advised that the Commission cannot block a staff-initiated “absent objection” circulation because this process is not a Commission vote.
One of the distinguishing characteristics of an independent agency, such as the Commission, is the ability of the agency to prosecute violations of its statute and rules.1 To ensure fairness in terms of true separation of functions, Congress gave power to the Commissioners to reconsider staff’s recommendations by independently assessing facts and legal justifications for initiating various actions. In other words, Congress intended a decision to bring an investigation to be reflective of a shared opinion of the majority of the Commissioners, rather than a unilateral ruling of the Division of Enforcement’s staff.
While I support the Division of Enforcement’s efforts to expeditiously investigate possible [redacted] activity, I also recognize that the Commission possesses certain responsibilities to execute its law enforcement powers that should not be brushed off to achieve an “efficient” investigative process.
Thus, I would encourage the Commission to preserve its powers, act as an independent agency, and review each enforcement matter on its own merits. For my part, I am committed to considering each enforcement matter in an expedited fashion, so not to delay the Division of Enforcement’s investigative work.
Statement of Commissioner Scott D. O’Malia
Today, after obtaining permission from the Commission’s Office of the General Counsel, I am releasing my dissent in a redacted form to the request by the Division of Enforcement (DOE) to issue an omnibus order of investigation that, through an “absent objection” process, could potentially be extended continuously without the opportunity for a Commission vote. I believe three steps must be taken to ensure that the Commission is executing its enforcement authority in a transparent and legally sound manner.
First, I call upon DOE to recirculate the omnibus order without the absent objection provision. I also encourage the Commission to take immediate steps to reevaluate its procedures to ensure that they have legal authority and are transparent to the public.
I believe in the robust use of the Commission’s enforcement authority to thwart fraud, manipulation, and abuse in CFTC-regulated markets. My concern is with the process that DOE seeks to utilize to extend the duration of these orders.
I acknowledge that, at times, the Commission must rely on various procedures, including the absent objection process and no-action relief to provide direction and/or guidance to market participants in a timely and efficient manner. However, this is in stark contrast to the manner in which the Commission should carry out its enforcement authority. Unlike staff guidance and interpretive statements, the initiation and extensions of enforcement investigations must be confined to the powers granted to the Commission by Congress.
Second, given the importance and magnitude of its mission, the Commission must clarify its policies and procedures to ensure transparency and prevent the misuse of no-action relief, omnibus orders and the absent objection process.
Third, to ensure that the Commission is not abusing its regulatory authority or compromising its enforcement powers, I invite Congress to conduct a full review of the Commission’s internal policies and procedures for various actions and interpretations of the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA). If Congress is dissatisfied with the Commission’s current practices and procedures, it should then enact reforms to the CEA to impose discipline on the Commission so that it complies with the Administrative Procedure Act and other laws.
I am confident the Commission can fulfill its mission in a transparent and legally sound manner.
1 “Whenever it shall appear to the Commission that any . . . person has engaged . . . in any act or practice constituting a violation of any provision of this Act or any rule, . . . the Commission may bring an action in the proper district court of the United States . . ..” (emphasis added). CEA § 6c(a), 7 U.S.C. § 13a-1(a).
Last Updated: August 13, 2013
Dissenting Statement of Commissioner Scott D. O’Malia to the Division of Enforcement’s Request that the Commission Issue the Omnibus Order Designating Officers of the Division of Enforcement with the Authority to Issue Subpoena and Take Testimony
August 13, 2013
I decline to authorize issuance of the omnibus Investigation Order, delegating to the Division of Enforcement sweeping subpoena power to investigate possible [redacted] activities [redacted]. I objected to the issuance of a similar omnibus order, which expired on May 20, 2013. While I strongly support a robust enforcement regime, I object to the process of waiving the Commission’s power to authorize an investigation, especially in the post-Dodd-Frank environment.
As with the previous Order, this Order gives the Division of Enforcement far-reaching subpoena authority to investigate possible violations of the rules adopted pursuant to Dodd-Frank. Many of these investigations will involve new and untested laws. If delegated to staff, I am concerned that the Commission will be unaware of the full ramifications of the new laws. Therefore, it is crucially important for the Commission to assess the legal and factual bases for initiating investigations on a case-by-case basis, and not hand over this responsibility to the Division of Enforcement at this time.
But what I find even more troubling is that the Division of Enforcement seeks to circumvent the powers of the Commission as it proposes to bring investigations on a summary basis by utilizing an absent objection process. As I understand, the Division of Enforcement proposed the same process in an earlier request to issue an omnibus subpoena. Since that time, unbeknownst to me, the legal powers of the no-objection process have been reinterpreted by the Commission’s Office of the General Counsel. Now, I am advised that the Commission cannot block a staff-initiated “absent objection” circulation because this process is not a Commission vote.
One of the distinguishing characteristics of an independent agency, such as the Commission, is the ability of the agency to prosecute violations of its statute and rules.1 To ensure fairness in terms of true separation of functions, Congress gave power to the Commissioners to reconsider staff’s recommendations by independently assessing facts and legal justifications for initiating various actions. In other words, Congress intended a decision to bring an investigation to be reflective of a shared opinion of the majority of the Commissioners, rather than a unilateral ruling of the Division of Enforcement’s staff.
While I support the Division of Enforcement’s efforts to expeditiously investigate possible [redacted] activity, I also recognize that the Commission possesses certain responsibilities to execute its law enforcement powers that should not be brushed off to achieve an “efficient” investigative process.
Thus, I would encourage the Commission to preserve its powers, act as an independent agency, and review each enforcement matter on its own merits. For my part, I am committed to considering each enforcement matter in an expedited fashion, so not to delay the Division of Enforcement’s investigative work.
Statement of Commissioner Scott D. O’Malia
Today, after obtaining permission from the Commission’s Office of the General Counsel, I am releasing my dissent in a redacted form to the request by the Division of Enforcement (DOE) to issue an omnibus order of investigation that, through an “absent objection” process, could potentially be extended continuously without the opportunity for a Commission vote. I believe three steps must be taken to ensure that the Commission is executing its enforcement authority in a transparent and legally sound manner.
First, I call upon DOE to recirculate the omnibus order without the absent objection provision. I also encourage the Commission to take immediate steps to reevaluate its procedures to ensure that they have legal authority and are transparent to the public.
I believe in the robust use of the Commission’s enforcement authority to thwart fraud, manipulation, and abuse in CFTC-regulated markets. My concern is with the process that DOE seeks to utilize to extend the duration of these orders.
I acknowledge that, at times, the Commission must rely on various procedures, including the absent objection process and no-action relief to provide direction and/or guidance to market participants in a timely and efficient manner. However, this is in stark contrast to the manner in which the Commission should carry out its enforcement authority. Unlike staff guidance and interpretive statements, the initiation and extensions of enforcement investigations must be confined to the powers granted to the Commission by Congress.
Second, given the importance and magnitude of its mission, the Commission must clarify its policies and procedures to ensure transparency and prevent the misuse of no-action relief, omnibus orders and the absent objection process.
Third, to ensure that the Commission is not abusing its regulatory authority or compromising its enforcement powers, I invite Congress to conduct a full review of the Commission’s internal policies and procedures for various actions and interpretations of the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA). If Congress is dissatisfied with the Commission’s current practices and procedures, it should then enact reforms to the CEA to impose discipline on the Commission so that it complies with the Administrative Procedure Act and other laws.
I am confident the Commission can fulfill its mission in a transparent and legally sound manner.
1 “Whenever it shall appear to the Commission that any . . . person has engaged . . . in any act or practice constituting a violation of any provision of this Act or any rule, . . . the Commission may bring an action in the proper district court of the United States . . ..” (emphasis added). CEA § 6c(a), 7 U.S.C. § 13a-1(a).
Last Updated: August 13, 2013
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)