1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |OSHA Issues Memo Regarding Discretion in Enforcement When Considering an Employer’s Good Faith Efforts During COVID-19

OSHA Issues Memo Regarding Discretion in Enforcement When Considering an Employer’s Good Faith Efforts During COVID-19

Client Alert | 1 min read | 04.20.20

On April 16, 2020, OSHA issued guidance entitled, “Discretion in Enforcement when Considering an Employer's Good Faith Efforts During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Pandemic” to announce that it will assess during an inspection an employer's efforts to comply with standards that require annual or recurring audits, reviews, training, or assessments in considering whether a citation should issue for non-compliance. The following were offered as examples:

  • Annual Audiograms
  • Annual Process Safety Management Requirements (Process Hazard Analysis (PHA) Revalidation, Review of Operating Procedures, and Refresher Training)
  • Hazardous Waste Operations Training
  • Respirator Fit Testing and Training
  • Maritime Crane Testing and Certification
  • Construction Crane Operator Certification
  • Medical Evaluation

Compliance officers will evaluate whether the employer thoroughly explored all options to comply with the applicable standard(s); any interim alternative protections implemented or provided to protect employees, such as engineering or administrative controls; and whether the employer took steps to reschedule the required annual activity as soon as possible. Where an employer cannot comply with OSHA’s requirements because local authorities required the workplace to close, the employer should demonstrate a good-faith attempt to meet the applicable requirements as soon as possible following the re-opening of the workplace.

Insights

Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.04.25

District Court Grants Preliminary Injunction Against Seller of Gray Market Snack Food Products

On November 12, 2025, Judge King in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington granted in part Haldiram India Ltd.’s (“Plaintiff” or “Haldiram”) motion for a preliminary injunction against Punjab Trading, Inc. (“Defendant” or “Punjab Trading”), a seller alleged to be importing and distributing gray market snack food products not authorized for sale in the United States. The court found that Haldiram was likely to succeed on the merits of its trademark infringement claim because the products at issue, which were intended for sale in India, were materially different from the versions intended for sale in the U.S., and for this reason were not genuine products when sold in the U.S. Although the court narrowed certain overbroad provisions in the requested order, it ultimately enjoined Punjab Trading from importing, selling, or assisting others in selling the non-genuine Haldiram products in the U.S. market....