{"id":9576,"date":"2025-04-10T12:11:20","date_gmt":"2025-04-10T16:11:20","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/oshadefensereport.com\/?p=9576"},"modified":"2026-03-20T13:33:25","modified_gmt":"2026-03-20T17:33:25","slug":"key-oshrc-rulings-explained-secretary-of-labor-v-trinity-solar-llc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/osha-defense-report\/key-oshrc-rulings-explained-secretary-of-labor-v-trinity-solar-llc\/","title":{"rendered":"Key OSHRC Rulings Explained: Secretary of Labor v. Trinity Solar LLC"},"content":{"rendered":"

By Valerie Butera<\/a><\/p>\n

Welcome to \u201cKey OSHRC Rulings Explained<\/em>,\u201d a new series in Conn Maciel Carey LLP\u2019s OSHA Defense Report<\/a> blog, designed to explore significant case summaries of Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (OSHRC) decisions. This series will provide clarity and context on key OSHRC rulings that have shaped workplace safety standards and compliance obligations under the Occupational Safety and Health Act. Our goal is to provide concise, insightful analyses of these rulings to help employers and safety professionals stay informed about evolving interpretations and enforcement trends, prepare for subsequent compliance obligations, and navigate the legal landscape of workplace safety. We invite you to follow along as we unpack the most impactful OSHRC decisions and their practical implications.<\/p>\n

Our first case law summary in the series will cover the Secretary of Labor v. Trinity Solar LLC, as successor to Trinity Solar Inc.<\/em>, OSHRC Docket No. 23-0712 (Dec. 26, 2024).<\/p>\n

Executive Summary<\/strong><\/p>\n

Following an employee fall that resulted in a fatality, Respondent Trinity Solar LLC, a company engaged in residential solar panel installation, received an OSHA citation alleging a repeat-serious violation of 20 C.F.R. 1926.501(b)(13) for employee failure to use a fall arrest system when engaged in residential construction activities 6 feet or more above lower levels.\u00a0 Because the Secretary, relying chiefly on inferences rather than facts in the record, failed to establish noncompliance with the cited standard, the citation was vacated.<\/p>\n

Procedural Background<\/strong><\/p>\n

Respondent Trinity Solar LLC is a company engaged in residential solar panel installation work.\u00a0 On October 4, 2022, one of Respondent\u2019s workers fell during solar panel installation work at a residence located in South Orange, New Jersey.\u00a0 The worker died as a result of his fall.\u00a0 No one witnessed what the worker was doing or saw where he was located immediately before the fall.\u00a0 The worker was wearing a harness at the time of the fall but was not tied off.\u00a0 The Respondent had previously installed rope line and anchors\/anchor points on portions of the residential roof planes on which solar panels were being installed.<\/p>\n

OSHA was alerted about the fall, and it commenced an inspection of the worksite.\u00a0 The inspection resulted in a repeat-serious citation alleging a violation of 20 C.F.R. 1926.501(b)(13) for employee failure to use a fall arrest system when engaged in residential construction activities 6 feet or more above lower levels.\u00a0 Specifically, the citation alleged that \u201cemployees working on a residential roof, 22-feet above the ground, and 12-feet above the ground, did not utilize any means of fall protection during the process of entry upon and exit from the roof.\u00a0 Violation occurred 10\/04\/2022.\u201d\u00a0 Respondent filed a timely notice of contest, bringing the matter before the Commission.\u00a0 The case was heard by Administrative Law (ALJ) Judge Carol Baumerich.<\/p>\n

The key issues in dispute were whether the Secretary established by a preponderance of the evidence that 29 C.F.R. 1926.501(b)(13) applied to the facts of the case and whether Respondent failed to comply with the standard on October 4, 2022.<\/p>\n

Findings of Fact<\/strong><\/p>\n

In October 2022, Respondent was engaged in a solar panel installation on a two-story single-family home in South Orange, New Jersey.\u00a0 The multi-day project involved installing solar panels on two separate roofs of the residence \u2013 the upper roof, which was 22 feet high, and the lower roof, which was 12 feet high.\u00a0 \"Adobestock<\/a>Four workers worked on the upper roof, and two workers worked on the lower roof.\u00a0 The workers accessed each roof using two designated ladders.\u00a0 While working on the roofs, the Respondent\u2019s workers all wore personal fall arrest systems (PFAS) for fall protection.<\/p>\n

Each PFAS consisted of several critical parts, a body harness, a lanyard, clips, and in some cases, a \u201cshock pack,\u201d which absorbs the impact of a fall and helps break the fall should an employee fall within six feet.\u00a0 The most critical aspect of the PFAS is that it must be connected to an anchor on the roof to provide protection from falling.\u00a0 On the first day of the project, in accordance with Respondent\u2019s fall protection policy, employees installed anchors on the roofs for use by Respondent\u2019s workers for their PFASs.\u00a0 The anchors were not moved or removed until the entire project was finished (about a week or two after the incident).<\/p>\n

At the beginning of each subsequent workday, a team lead connected all the personal rope lines to an anchor on the roof.\u00a0 The rope lines remained on the roof all day, but consistent with the Respondent\u2019s policy, the team lead took them down at the end of the day and returned them to the workers to whom they belonged.<\/p>\n

On October 4, 2022, workers climbed the ladders and began work on the two roofs without incident.\u00a0 The decedent, who had worked for Respondent for six years and had an excellent safety record, worked on the upper roof.\u00a0 At some point in the day, all the workers took a lunch break at the same time.\u00a0 After lunch, the decedent fell.\u00a0 It is unknown where the decedent was when he fell \u2013 no one saw him on any surface right before he fell.\u00a0 The decedent died as a result of the fall.\u00a0 The decedent was wearing his harness, but it was not connected to an anchored rope line.<\/p>\n

After OSHA was notified of the fall, an OSHA inspector visited the worksite, arriving about 40 minutes after the incident.\u00a0 He did not observe any employee working on the roof or elsewhere.\u00a0 He took pictures of the worksite from street level, but did not climb a ladder to take pictures.\u00a0 He also failed to measure the distances between the top of any ladder and rooftop protection items, such as anchors, during the inspection.<\/p>\n

Respondent has a fall protection safety program, including training and a robust self-audit monitoring program.\u00a0 Respondent also had two prior Commission final orders of fall protection violations of the cited standard.<\/p>\n

Legal Arguments<\/strong><\/p>\n

Application of the Standard<\/u><\/em>: The ALJ noted at the outset that because the Secretary alleged a rooftop fall protection violation in the citation, the Secretary bore the burden of demonstrating that workers were unprotected on a roof<\/em>.\u00a0 The Secretary argued that the preponderance of the evidence established that the decedent \u201cfell while stepping onto the roof,\u201d rendering the standard applicable.\u00a0 The Secretary based her argument on before and after pictures from the worksite that she argued showed that the decedent dented the gutter when he fell and claims that it was \u201cmore likely than not\u201d that the decedent fell from the roof rather than the ladder based on previous incident reports held by Respondent. \u00a0Respondent argued that the record did not establish that the decedent fell from the roof.\u00a0 The ALJ agreed with Respondent, rejecting as speculative the Secretary\u2019s argument based on Respondent\u2019s injury records as tending to show a greater likelihood of falling from the roof rather than a ladder, and noting that the photographs cited by the Secretary were taken from different vantage points and did not clearly show a damaged gutter.\u00a0 Further, Respondent did not make a damage report regarding a damaged gutter during the job, which the ALJ credited as further evidence that there was probably not any damage to the gutter.\u00a0 Accordingly, the ALJ held that the facts surrounding the decedent\u2019s fall did not establish applicability.<\/p>\n

Other facts on the record, however, established that Respondent\u2019s workers frequently entered and exited the rooftops from ladders and worked atop the roofs, as alleged in the citation.\u00a0 The ALJ thus found that the construction fall protection standard applied to Respondent\u2019s general practice of ascending a ladder, accessing a roof, and working from a residential worktop, all of which occurred on October 4, 2022, the date of the alleged violation contained in the citation.<\/p>\n

Noncompliance<\/u><\/em>: The ALJ found that there was no evidence that any of Respondent\u2019s employees worked on the rooftop at the worksite on October 4, 2022, without fall protection.\u00a0 The decedent\u2019s fatal fall was not enough, by itself, to establish noncompliance with the cited standard. \u00a0As discussed above, the record did not establish the location from which the decedent fell, and if he fell from a ladder rather than the roof, the cited standard would not apply.<\/p>\n

The Secretary argued further that the Respondent must have violated the cited standard because \u201cthe placement of the rope lines shows the decedent and other employees were not tied off when entering and exiting the upper and lower roof.\u201d\u00a0 The Secretary asserted that the rope lines connected to the anchors that workers were supposed to reach from the ladder to connect to their PFAS before leaving the ladder to get onto the roof were too far away and therefore Respondent\u2019s workers must have been climbing onto the roofs from the ladder without being protected by PFAS.\u00a0 Respondent argued that the record established no such thing.\u00a0 Indeed, all witnesses testified that the rope lines were reachable from the ladder.\u00a0 The ALJ agreed with the Respondent, pointing to multiple instances of witness testimony that the rope lines must be reachable from the ladders to comply with Respondent\u2019s safety policy and that they in fact were reachable from the ladders.\u00a0 Moreover, as the inspector failed to take measurements, there was no credible or persuasive evidence in the record to rebut the witness testimony on reachability.<\/p>\n

The Secretary argued further that at least one worker on the upper roof was entering and exiting the roof without fall protection, assuming one anchor per worker and only one anchor was reachable from the ladder.\u00a0 It was undisputed that each anchored clip was limited to one worker due to weight constraints.\u00a0 The Secretary urged that the anchor to the right of the ladder on the upper roof was too far away to be reachable by a worker on the ladder.\u00a0 The ALJ rejected this argument as well, noting that the Secretary had failed to address the possibility that one worker ascends onto the roof using one anchored rope line and then switches over to another anchored rope line on the roof, leaving the initial anchored rope line available for the next worker.\u00a0 Respondent\u2019s employees had testified that they employed this practice, and the Secretary attempted to elicit adequate contrary evidence from them, but they never fully agreed with her leading questions regarding the issue, thus the court afforded the statements elicited by the Secretary on the issue limited evidentiary weight.\u00a0 Crediting the testimony of Respondent\u2019s employees, the ALJ found that the Secretary had failed to establish noncompliance with the cited standards and ordered the citation vacated.<\/p>\n

Contact Us<\/strong>\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

Reach out to CMC\u2019s national OSHA \u2022 Workplace Safety Practice Group<\/a> to discuss how the ruling of this case may affect your company\u2019s operations or if we can help you navigate similar situations with OSHA.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Valerie Butera Welcome to \u201cKey OSHRC Rulings Explained,\u201d a new series in Conn Maciel Carey LLP\u2019s OSHA Defense Report blog, designed to explore significant case summaries of Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (OSHRC) decisions. This…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":9583,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_price":"","_stock":"","_tribe_ticket_header":"","_tribe_default_ticket_provider":"","_tribe_ticket_capacity":"","_ticket_start_date":"","_ticket_end_date":"","_tribe_ticket_show_description":"","_tribe_ticket_show_not_going":false,"_tribe_ticket_use_global_stock":"","_tribe_ticket_global_stock_level":"","_global_stock_mode":"","_global_stock_cap":"","_tribe_rsvp_for_event":"","_tribe_ticket_going_count":"","_tribe_ticket_not_going_count":"","_tribe_tickets_list":"[]","_tribe_ticket_has_attendee_info_fields":false,"footnotes":"","_links_to":"","_links_to_target":""},"categories":[53],"tags":[1575,1568,1572],"class_list":["post-9576","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-key-osha-cases-explained","tag-fall-protection-scaffolding","tag-high-hazard-industries","tag-incident-investigations"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\nKey OSHRC Rulings Explained: Secretary of Labor v. Trinity Solar LLC - OSHA Defense Report<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/osha-defense-report\/key-oshrc-rulings-explained-secretary-of-labor-v-trinity-solar-llc\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Key OSHRC Rulings Explained: Secretary of Labor v. Trinity Solar LLC - OSHA Defense Report\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"By Valerie Butera Welcome to \u201cKey OSHRC Rulings Explained,\u201d a new series in Conn Maciel Carey LLP\u2019s OSHA Defense Report blog, designed to explore significant case summaries of Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (OSHRC) decisions. This…\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/osha-defense-report\/key-oshrc-rulings-explained-secretary-of-labor-v-trinity-solar-llc\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"OSHA Defense Report\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2025-04-10T16:11:20+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-03-20T17:33:25+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/osha-defense-report\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2025\/04\/AdobeStock_1191748284-scaled.jpeg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"2560\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"1707\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Eric J. Conn\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Eric J. Conn\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.connmaciel.com\\\/osha-defense-report\\\/key-oshrc-rulings-explained-secretary-of-labor-v-trinity-solar-llc\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.connmaciel.com\\\/osha-defense-report\\\/key-oshrc-rulings-explained-secretary-of-labor-v-trinity-solar-llc\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Eric J. Conn\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.connmaciel.com\\\/osha-defense-report\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/a953377c5ca8693989b2cc9938f52902\"},\"headline\":\"Key OSHRC Rulings Explained: Secretary of Labor v. Trinity Solar LLC\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-04-10T16:11:20+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-03-20T17:33:25+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.connmaciel.com\\\/osha-defense-report\\\/key-oshrc-rulings-explained-secretary-of-labor-v-trinity-solar-llc\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":1796,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.connmaciel.com\\\/osha-defense-report\\\/key-oshrc-rulings-explained-secretary-of-labor-v-trinity-solar-llc\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.connmaciel.com\\\/osha-defense-report\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/3\\\/2025\\\/04\\\/AdobeStock_1191748284-scaled.jpeg\",\"keywords\":[\"Fall Protection & Scaffolding\",\"High-Hazard Industries\",\"Incident Investigations\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Key OSHA Cases Explained\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.connmaciel.com\\\/osha-defense-report\\\/key-oshrc-rulings-explained-secretary-of-labor-v-trinity-solar-llc\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.connmaciel.com\\\/osha-defense-report\\\/key-oshrc-rulings-explained-secretary-of-labor-v-trinity-solar-llc\\\/\",\"name\":\"Key OSHRC Rulings Explained: Secretary of Labor v. Trinity Solar LLC - OSHA Defense Report\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.connmaciel.com\\\/osha-defense-report\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.connmaciel.com\\\/osha-defense-report\\\/key-oshrc-rulings-explained-secretary-of-labor-v-trinity-solar-llc\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.connmaciel.com\\\/osha-defense-report\\\/key-oshrc-rulings-explained-secretary-of-labor-v-trinity-solar-llc\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.connmaciel.com\\\/osha-defense-report\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/3\\\/2025\\\/04\\\/AdobeStock_1191748284-scaled.jpeg\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-04-10T16:11:20+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-03-20T17:33:25+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.connmaciel.com\\\/osha-defense-report\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/a953377c5ca8693989b2cc9938f52902\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.connmaciel.com\\\/osha-defense-report\\\/key-oshrc-rulings-explained-secretary-of-labor-v-trinity-solar-llc\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.connmaciel.com\\\/osha-defense-report\\\/key-oshrc-rulings-explained-secretary-of-labor-v-trinity-solar-llc\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.connmaciel.com\\\/osha-defense-report\\\/key-oshrc-rulings-explained-secretary-of-labor-v-trinity-solar-llc\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.connmaciel.com\\\/osha-defense-report\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/3\\\/2025\\\/04\\\/AdobeStock_1191748284-scaled.jpeg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.connmaciel.com\\\/osha-defense-report\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/3\\\/2025\\\/04\\\/AdobeStock_1191748284-scaled.jpeg\",\"width\":2560,\"height\":1707,\"caption\":\"A yellow hard hat rests near a judge's gavel on a wooden surface. A blurred background suggests a construction or industrial setting. A partially visible solar panel lies near the gavel.\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.connmaciel.com\\\/osha-defense-report\\\/key-oshrc-rulings-explained-secretary-of-labor-v-trinity-solar-llc\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.connmaciel.com\\\/osha-defense-report\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Key OSHRC Rulings Explained: Secretary of Labor v. Trinity Solar LLC\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.connmaciel.com\\\/osha-defense-report\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.connmaciel.com\\\/osha-defense-report\\\/\",\"name\":\"OSHA Defense Report\",\"description\":\"Conn Maciel Carey\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.connmaciel.com\\\/osha-defense-report\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.connmaciel.com\\\/osha-defense-report\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/a953377c5ca8693989b2cc9938f52902\",\"name\":\"Eric J. Conn\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/f04559c4dda4a17adec804ffe8ad13ba85b0763e78aeb020d51236a7328c18e2?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/f04559c4dda4a17adec804ffe8ad13ba85b0763e78aeb020d51236a7328c18e2?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/f04559c4dda4a17adec804ffe8ad13ba85b0763e78aeb020d51236a7328c18e2?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Eric J. Conn\"},\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.connmaciel.com\\\/osha-defense-report\\\/author\\\/econn5195\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Key OSHRC Rulings Explained: Secretary of Labor v. Trinity Solar LLC - OSHA Defense Report","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/osha-defense-report\/key-oshrc-rulings-explained-secretary-of-labor-v-trinity-solar-llc\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Key OSHRC Rulings Explained: Secretary of Labor v. Trinity Solar LLC - OSHA Defense Report","og_description":"By Valerie Butera Welcome to \u201cKey OSHRC Rulings Explained,\u201d a new series in Conn Maciel Carey LLP\u2019s OSHA Defense Report blog, designed to explore significant case summaries of Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (OSHRC) decisions. This…","og_url":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/osha-defense-report\/key-oshrc-rulings-explained-secretary-of-labor-v-trinity-solar-llc\/","og_site_name":"OSHA Defense Report","article_published_time":"2025-04-10T16:11:20+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-03-20T17:33:25+00:00","og_image":[{"width":2560,"height":1707,"url":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/osha-defense-report\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2025\/04\/AdobeStock_1191748284-scaled.jpeg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Eric J. Conn","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Eric J. Conn","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/osha-defense-report\/key-oshrc-rulings-explained-secretary-of-labor-v-trinity-solar-llc\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/osha-defense-report\/key-oshrc-rulings-explained-secretary-of-labor-v-trinity-solar-llc\/"},"author":{"name":"Eric J. Conn","@id":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/osha-defense-report\/#\/schema\/person\/a953377c5ca8693989b2cc9938f52902"},"headline":"Key OSHRC Rulings Explained: Secretary of Labor v. Trinity Solar LLC","datePublished":"2025-04-10T16:11:20+00:00","dateModified":"2026-03-20T17:33:25+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/osha-defense-report\/key-oshrc-rulings-explained-secretary-of-labor-v-trinity-solar-llc\/"},"wordCount":1796,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/osha-defense-report\/key-oshrc-rulings-explained-secretary-of-labor-v-trinity-solar-llc\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/osha-defense-report\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2025\/04\/AdobeStock_1191748284-scaled.jpeg","keywords":["Fall Protection & Scaffolding","High-Hazard Industries","Incident Investigations"],"articleSection":["Key OSHA Cases Explained"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/osha-defense-report\/key-oshrc-rulings-explained-secretary-of-labor-v-trinity-solar-llc\/","url":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/osha-defense-report\/key-oshrc-rulings-explained-secretary-of-labor-v-trinity-solar-llc\/","name":"Key OSHRC Rulings Explained: Secretary of Labor v. Trinity Solar LLC - OSHA Defense Report","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/osha-defense-report\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/osha-defense-report\/key-oshrc-rulings-explained-secretary-of-labor-v-trinity-solar-llc\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/osha-defense-report\/key-oshrc-rulings-explained-secretary-of-labor-v-trinity-solar-llc\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/osha-defense-report\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2025\/04\/AdobeStock_1191748284-scaled.jpeg","datePublished":"2025-04-10T16:11:20+00:00","dateModified":"2026-03-20T17:33:25+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/osha-defense-report\/#\/schema\/person\/a953377c5ca8693989b2cc9938f52902"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/osha-defense-report\/key-oshrc-rulings-explained-secretary-of-labor-v-trinity-solar-llc\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/osha-defense-report\/key-oshrc-rulings-explained-secretary-of-labor-v-trinity-solar-llc\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/osha-defense-report\/key-oshrc-rulings-explained-secretary-of-labor-v-trinity-solar-llc\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/osha-defense-report\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2025\/04\/AdobeStock_1191748284-scaled.jpeg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/osha-defense-report\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2025\/04\/AdobeStock_1191748284-scaled.jpeg","width":2560,"height":1707,"caption":"A yellow hard hat rests near a judge's gavel on a wooden surface. A blurred background suggests a construction or industrial setting. A partially visible solar panel lies near the gavel."},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/osha-defense-report\/key-oshrc-rulings-explained-secretary-of-labor-v-trinity-solar-llc\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/osha-defense-report\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Key OSHRC Rulings Explained: Secretary of Labor v. Trinity Solar LLC"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/osha-defense-report\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/osha-defense-report\/","name":"OSHA Defense Report","description":"Conn Maciel Carey","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/osha-defense-report\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/osha-defense-report\/#\/schema\/person\/a953377c5ca8693989b2cc9938f52902","name":"Eric J. Conn","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/f04559c4dda4a17adec804ffe8ad13ba85b0763e78aeb020d51236a7328c18e2?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/f04559c4dda4a17adec804ffe8ad13ba85b0763e78aeb020d51236a7328c18e2?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/f04559c4dda4a17adec804ffe8ad13ba85b0763e78aeb020d51236a7328c18e2?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Eric J. Conn"},"url":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/osha-defense-report\/author\/econn5195\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/osha-defense-report\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9576","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/osha-defense-report\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/osha-defense-report\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/osha-defense-report\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/osha-defense-report\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=9576"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/osha-defense-report\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9576\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":11268,"href":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/osha-defense-report\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9576\/revisions\/11268"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/osha-defense-report\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/9583"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/osha-defense-report\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=9576"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/osha-defense-report\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=9576"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/osha-defense-report\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=9576"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}