436 United States v. W. T. Grant 910 Wakley v. Hart, 6 Binn. 316 U. S. 307 68, 316, 320, 322, 386 Waller v. United States, 389 A. 439, 448 290 United States Steel Corp. v. 27,28 8 Weeks v. United States, 232 267, Page 632 592 Weinstein v. Bradford, 423 U. S. 147 352, 358, 398, 400, 401, 417-419, 487, 501 Weiss v. Fote, 7 N. Y. 2d 579 682 Wellner v. Minnesota State Jr. College Bd., 487 F. 2d 153 West v. Cabell, 153 U. S. 78 Western College of Homeopathic Medicine v. Cleveland, 12 Ohio St. 375 Western Live Stock v. Bureau of Revenue, 303 U. S. 250 Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Costle, 191 U. S. App. D. C. 309 Wheeler v. Cincinnati, 19 Ohio St. 19 676, 679, 680 305 443 308 195 632, 634, 635, 638, 651, 654, 656, 666, 669 678 Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Fox, 298 U. S. 193 Whitaker Corp. v. United Aircraft Corp., 482 F. 2d 1079 910 Whiteley v. Warden, 401 U. S. 560 White Lumber Sales, Inc. v. Sulmonetti, 252 Ore. 121 Whitney v. Graves, 299 U. 366 Woodson v. North Carolina, W. R. Grace & Co. v. Commissioner of Revenue, 378 Mass. 577 Wright v. North Charleston, 271 S. C. 515 Wright v. Woods, 432 F. 2d 1143 Wyatt v. United States, 362 U. S. 525 Wyman v. Rothstein, 398 U. S. 275 Ybarra v. Illinois, 444 U. S. 85 Youakim v. Miller, 425 U. S. 231 Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U. S. 374 470 443 910 S. 681, 682 444 Wier v. State, 319 So. 2d 80 64 575 S. 288 46 608 37 615 37 556, 567 Wilson v. Mayor of New York 418 678 400 U. S. 433 108, 633 Zobriscky v. Los Angeles County, 28 Cal. App. 930 970 Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U. S. 306 Zweig v. Hearst Corp., 594 F. 2d 1261 54 250 CASES ADJUDGED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES AT OCTOBER TERM, 1979 WHIRLPOOL CORP. v. MARSHALL, SECRETARY OF LABOR CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT No. 78-1870. Argued January 9, 1980-Decided February 26, 1980 Section 11 (c) (1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (Act) prohibits an employer from discharging or discriminating against any employee who exercises "any right afforded by" the Act. Respondent Secretary of Labor promulgated a regulation providing that, among other rights protected by the Act, is the right of an employee to choose not to perform his assigned task because of a reasonable apprehension of death or serious injury coupled with a reasonable belief that no less drastic alternative is available. Claiming that a suspended wiremesh screen in petitioner's manufacturing plant used to protect employees from objects occasionally falling from an overhead conveyor was unsafe, two employees of petitioner refused to comply with their foreman's order to perform their usual maintenance duties on the screen. They were then ordered to punch out without working or being paid for the remainder of their shift, and subsequently received written reprimands, which were placed in their employment files. Thereafter, respondent brought suit in Federal District Court, alleging that petitioner's actions against the two employees constituted discrimination in violation of § 11 (c)(1) of the Act, and seeking injunctive and other relief. While finding that the implementing regulation justified the employees' refusals to obey their foreman's order, the District Court 1 nevertheless denied relief, holding that the regulation was inconsistent with the Act and therefore invalid. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, agreeing that the employees' actions were justified under the regulation but disagreeing with the conclusion that the regulation was invalid. Held: The regulation in question was promulgated by respondent in the valid exercise of his authority under the Act, and constitutes a permissible gloss on the Act, in light of the Act's language, structure, and legislative history. Pp. 8-22. (a) The regulation clearly conforms to the Act's fundamental objective of preventing occupational deaths and serious injuries. Moreover, the regulation is an appropriate aid to the full effectuation of the Act's "general duty" clause, which requires an employer to furnish to each of his employees employment and a place of employment free from recognized hazards that are causing or likely to cause death or serious injury to the employees. The regulation thus on its face appears to further the Act's overriding purpose and rationally complements its remedial scheme. Pp. 11-13. (b) The facts that Congress, at the time it was considering passage of the Act, rejected a so-called "strike with pay" provision (whereby an obligation would be imposed on employers to continue to pay employees who absented themselves from work for reasons of safety), and also rejected a provision that would have given the Labor Department, in imminent-danger situations, the power temporarily to shut down all or part of an employer's plant, do not indicate a congressional intent incompatible with an administrative interpretation of the Act such as is embodied in the regulation at issue. In contrast to the "strike with pay" provision, the regulation does not require employers to pay workers who refuse to perform assigned tasks in face of imminent danger, but simply provides that in such case the employer may not "discriminate" against the employees involved. And in contrast to the "shutdown" provision, the regulation accords no authority to Government officials but simply permits private employees to avoid workplace conditions that they believe pose grave dangers to their own safety and does not empower such employees to order their employers to correct the hazardous condition. Pp. 13–21. 593 F. 2d 715, affirmed. STEWART, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. Robert E. Mann argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Ronald J. Hein, Jr., and Mark A. Lies II. Solicitor General McCree argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Deputy Solicitor General Geller, Edwin S. Kneedler, Benjamin W. Mintz, and Dennis K. Kade.* MR. JUSTICE STEWART delivered the opinion of the Court. 1 The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (Act) 1 prohibits an employer from discharging or discriminating against any employee who exercises "any right afforded by" the Act. The Secretary of Labor (Secretary) has promulgated a regulation providing that, among the rights that the Act so protects, is the right of an employee to choose not to perform his assigned task because of a reasonable appre *Robert T. Thompson, Stephen A. Bokat, and Stanley T. Kaleczyc filed a brief for the Chamber of Commerce of the United States as amicus curiae urging reversal.. Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed by Warren Spannaus, Attorney General, and Steven M. Gunn and Sharon L'Herault. Special Assistant Attorneys General, for the State of Minnesota; by J. Albert Woll, Elliott. Bredhoff, John Fillion, George H. Cohen, Robert M. Weinberg, Laurence Gold, and George Kaufmann for the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations et al.; and by Michael Churchill for the Philadelphia Area Project on Occupational Safety and Health. Jeffrey B. Schwartz filed a brief for the American Public Health Association as amicus curiae. 184 Stat. 1590, as amended, 92 Stat. 183, 29 U. S. C. § 651 et seq. (1976 ed. and Supp. II). 2 Section 11 (c) (1) of the Act, 84 Stat. 1603, 29 U. S. C. § 660 (c) (1), provides in full: "No person shall discharge or in any manner discriminate against any employee because such employee has filed any complaint or instituted or caused to be instituted any proceeding under or related to this Act or has testified or is about to testify in any such proceeding or because of the exercise by such employee on behalf of himself or others of any right afforded by this Act." |