Simplified Proceedings eligibility

Cases without complex issues of law or fact are appropriate for Simplified Proceedings. Under the general eligibility in 2200.202(a), that typically means cases that display one or more of the listed characteristics:

• Relatively few citation items.
• An aggregate proposed penalty of not more than $20,000.
• No allegation of willfulness or a repeat violation.
• Not involving a fatality.
• A hearing expected to take less than two days.
• A small employer, whether self-represented or represented by counsel.

Each case is evaluated on its facts and complexity; meeting one or more of these characteristics makes a case generally suitable for the Simplified Proceedings track. (See 2200.202(a).)

Yes — an aggregate proposed penalty of $20,000 or less makes a case generally eligible for Simplified Proceedings. The rule specifically lists an aggregate proposed penalty of not more than $20,000 as a characteristic of cases appropriate for Simplified Proceedings. (See 2200.202(a)(2).)

Yes — cases with an aggregate proposed penalty of more than $20,000 but not more than $30,000 may be selected for Simplified Proceedings at the discretion of the Chief Administrative Law Judge. 2200.202(b) gives the Chief Administrative Law Judge authority to select such cases when otherwise appropriate.

Generally yes — an allegation of willfulness or a repeat violation makes a case inappropriate for Simplified Proceedings. 2200.202(a)(3) lists “no allegation of willfulness or a repeat violation” as a characteristic of cases suitable for the Simplified Proceedings track.

• Note: the administrative practice that limits using violations older than three years when classifying a violation as repeat is an enforcement policy and not a statutory requirement; see OSHA's letter of interpretation on posting and repeat classification for related discussion.

No — cases involving a fatality are generally not appropriate for Simplified Proceedings. The rule specifically lists “[n]ot involving a fatality” as a characteristic of cases that are suitable for the Simplified Proceedings track, so fatality cases are ordinarily excluded. (2200.202(a)(4)).

Yes — a hearing expected to take less than two days is one of the criteria for Simplified Proceedings. 2200.202(a)(5) lists an expected hearing length of less than two days as a characteristic of cases appropriate for the Simplified Proceedings track.

• If the hearing is expected to last longer, the case is less likely to be placed on the simplified track because Simplified Proceedings are designed for shorter, less complex hearings.

“Relatively few citation items” means that the number and complexity of cited items are small enough to be handled efficiently in the Simplified Proceedings format. The regulation uses the phrase without a fixed numeric limit, so applications are decided case-by-case under 2200.202(a)(1).

• Practical guidance: if the citations are limited in number and present straightforward factual and legal issues (so the hearing can be handled quickly), they fit the “relatively few” description; complex multi-item inspections usually do not.

Yes — small employers are eligible for Simplified Proceedings whether they represent themselves or are represented by counsel. 2200.202(a)(6) explicitly includes a small employer "whether self-represented or represented by counsel" as generally appropriate for the Simplified Proceedings track.

The Office of Administrative Law Judges determines selection for Simplified Proceedings, with certain discretionary decisions reserved to the Chief Administrative Law Judge. The rule sets the eligibility criteria in 2200.202 and explicitly gives the Chief Administrative Law Judge discretion to select cases with penalties over $20,000 but not more than $30,000 under 2200.202(b).

• Parties may request a particular track, but the selection is an administrative decision made by the judges.

Yes — a party can request that their case be handled as a Simplified Proceeding, but placement on that track is subject to the eligibility criteria and the administrative decision of the Office of Administrative Law Judges. 2200.202 describes what cases are suitable, and the judges make the final determination based on those criteria.

• Requesting the track does not guarantee assignment to it; the case still must meet the listed characteristics and any applicable discretionary considerations.

No — not all settlement agreements are posted on OSHA's public website. According to OSHA's letter of interpretation dated September 27, 2004, OSHA posts major settlement agreements on its web site, but the majority of settlement agreements are not placed on the site even though they remain subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

• The letter also notes that settlement agreements are public information and that the Commission's procedural rule 29 CFR 2200.100(c) (as discussed in the letter) requires posting in the same way employers post citations and notices of contest.

No — OSHA generally maintains citations and proposed penalties on its website for inspections conducted since OSHA began, and it does not routinely remove them based solely on age. The September 27, 2004 letter of interpretation confirms that OSHA posts citations and proposed penalties going back to the start of the Agency and that the published information is consistent with FOIA obligations.

• While some enforcement policies limit using older violations for classification (for example, certain administrative limits on using violations older than three years for repeat classification), that limitation is an enforcement policy and not the same as removing web postings; see the same September 27, 2004 interpretation.

Usually not — employers should not expect automatic confidentiality for settlement agreements. OSHA's September 27, 2004 letter of interpretation explains that settlement agreements are public information and, although most settlement agreements are not posted on OSHA's web site, they remain subject to disclosure under FOIA.

• In short: major agreements may be posted, many smaller agreements are not routinely posted, but confidentiality is not guaranteed because FOIA can require disclosure. (See the September 27, 2004 interpretation).

No — placement in Simplified Proceedings affects only the procedural track for resolving the case, not the employer’s substantive obligations or liability. 2200.202 sets eligibility for a simplified procedural process; it does not alter the underlying statutory or regulatory violations or how penalties are determined on the merits.

• The simplified track is designed to streamline hearings that are not factually or legally complex, but any findings and penalty determinations still rest on the applicable law and the record.