Southwood Door Company Case Summary

1. Based on these facts, what are the policy considerations in favor and against allowing the plaintiff to pursue a lawsuit against OSHA, seeking a writ of mandamus from a federal judge, and requiring OSHA to adjudicate plaintiff’s retaliation claim against the employer? This case is about a man, Roger Wood, a former electrician that worked for United Engineers and Constructors at the Johnson Atoll Chemical Agent Disposal System location and witnessed management and co-workers not using the proper safety precautions when destroying chemical weapons. Before Wood worked for JACADS, he was employed at Pine Bluff Arsenal in Arkansas and gained extensive knowledge in the handling and destroying of chemical weapons. Wood filed several safety complaints …show more content…
Burton filed for unemployment benefits, which were denied, but Burton later appealed to the Circuit Court and the ruling was overturned and Burton received benefits. Southwood Door Company is now appealing the decision of the Circuit Court. Since Southwood employs truck drivers, Southwood is subject to federal Department of Transportation regulations governing the drug and alcohol testing of its drivers. When Burton was randomly selected, he performed the necessary testing and cooperated with the law and rules of the business. When he received the call that his test was positive, he was terminated the next day, with no chance to redeem himself. Burton went and performed an at home test which came back negative and also went and visited a doctor who performed a urinalysis as well as a hair test, which can tell for 90 days, and those also came back negative. Burton could not be reinstated even with this evidence. In turn, Burton re-appealed the decision of the referee and was one day late, but the judge of the Circuit Court allowed the case to be reviewed. Southwood was also supposed to offer Burton a confirmation test on the split collection and he was not offered that at all. The Circuit Court reversed the judgment and awarded Burton unemployment benefits, under the understanding that Southwood did not provide sufficient evidence to prove misconduct. Southwood then appeals again with this statement, “Southwood appeals and raises three assignments of error, arguing the circuit court ordered in finding good cause to relax Burton's time to appeal, the circuit court applied an improper legal standard to determine that Burton had committed misconduct, and the circuit court erred in