OSHA Finalizes Workplace Recordkeeping and Reporting Rule
Client Alert | 3 min read | 05.12.16
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) finalized its "Improve Tracking of Workplace Injuries and Illnesses" rule this week.1 The rule requires employers to electronically submit records of workplace injuries and illnesses to OSHA for inclusion on the agency’s website, prohibits employers from retaliating against employees for reporting such incidents, and ensures that businesses have procedures for reporting workplace injuries that do not discourage employees from filing reports.
Existing law requires covered employers to collect and record data on injuries and illnesses in the workplace,2 and OSHA already has an online database of such records for more than 240,000 work sites.3 The new rule makes electronic reporting of these records mandatory for covered businesses with 250 or more employees, and for smaller businesses (those between 20–249 employees) that operate in certain industries, including agriculture, construction, and manufacturing. Moreover, despite privacy and due process concerns raised in public comments, OSHA makes it clear in the preamble that it intends to post the information on its website.
According to a blog post by Deputy Labor Secretary Chris Lu coinciding with the announcement of the final rule: "OSHA's final rule will modernize the current system by taking establishment-specific injury information that is already collected by employers and making it available to the public once it is cleaned of personally identifiable information."4 The agency hopes that the new rule will “encourage employers, workers, researchers, the public and OSHA to work together to prevent work-related injuries and illnesses.”5
Despite Secretary Lu's comments, there are concerns that the new rule imposes onerous requirements on many employers. Among other things, the final rule takes a somewhat novel approach to OSHA's rulemaking authority by authorizing OSHA (under § 1904.35) to cite employers for taking what OSHA perceives to be retaliatory action against employees for reporting injuries or illnesses, even if the employee has not filed a claim of discrimination under Section 11(c) of the OSH Act.
OSHA received over 1,800 comments on its proposal during the rulemaking process. According to one industry study, compliance costs for covered businesses may exceed $1.1 billion.6 Not surprisingly, OSHA’s economic analysis estimates far lower compliance costs.
There is no question that businesses need to prepare not only for these new reporting requirements—which will be phased in starting January 1, 2017—but also for increased enforcement activity resulting from these enhanced obligations.
1 Improve Tracking of Workplace Injuries and Illnesses (May 11, 2016) (to be codified at 29 C.F.R. Parts 1902 and 1904).
2 See 29 C.F.R. § 1904.
3 See Establishment Specific Injury & Illness Data (OSHA Data Initiative), U.S. DEP’T OF LABOR, (last visited May 11, 2016).
4 Chris Lu, Transparent Data Will Make Workplaces Safer. Here’s How., U.S. DEP’T OF LABOR BLOG (May 11, 2016).
5Id.
6 United States Chamber of Commerce, Occupational Safety and Health Administration Proposed Rule to Improve Tracking of Workplace Injuries and Illnesses, 78 Fed. Reg. 67,254 (Nov. 8, 2013), Dockets Number OSHA-2013-0023, at 25 (Mar. 10, 2014).
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.12.25
Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality
On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument.
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.11.25
Director Squires Revamps the Workings of the U.S. Patent Office
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.10.25
Creativity You Can Use: CJEU Clarifies Copyright for Applied Art
Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.10.25
Federal Court Strikes Down Interior Order Suspending Wind Energy Development
