Description: Challenge to Oregon regulations related to employee exposure to wildfire smoke and temperatures exceeding 80 degrees Fahrenheit that were adopted in response to an executive order regarding climate change.
Oregon Manufacturers & Commerce v. Oregon Occupational Safety & Health Division
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 12/20/2022 Opinion and Order Download Motion to dismiss granted. Oregon Federal Court Rejected Industry Groups’ Challenge to Worker Protection Rules for Heat and Wildfire Smoke. The federal district court for the District of Oregon dismissed manufacturing, commerce, logging, and forestry organizations’ lawsuit challenging State of Oregon rules that sought to protect workers from wildfire smoke and excessive heat. The plaintiffs alleged that the regulations violated their due process rights because the rules were too vague to provide fair notice to employers, and that the rules exceeded the agencies’ authority. The court held that sovereign immunity barred the claims against the State agencies as well as state law claims against individual State officials. The court further found that the complaint failed to state due process claims against the individual defendants because the rules were not vague in all circumstances. 06/15/2022 Complaint Download Complaint filed. Lawsuit Challenged Oregon Regulations Intended to Protect Workers from Excessive Heat and Wildfire Smoke. Three business and trade groups filed a federal lawsuit in the District of Oregon challenging Oregon regulations related to employee exposure to wildfire smoke and temperatures exceeding 80 degrees Fahrenheit. The regulations were adopted in response to an executive order issued by Governor Kate Brown in 2020 that directed state agencies to take actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate climate change impacts. The order included a directive for development of a proposal to protect employees from workplace exposures to excessive heat and wildfire smoke. The plaintiffs asserted that the regulations were unconstitutionally vague and that the defendants exceeded their statutory authority.