LV roofer sues state over safety regulations

Grace Leong

Tuesday, Oct. 5, 1999 | 10:51 a.m.

Dean Roofing Co. of Las Vegas sued the Nevada Division of Industrial Relations and several of its senior officers, alleging they wrongfully issued a citation against the contractor for allowing its workers to work without fall protection and safety devices.

The Clark County District Court suit said Dean Roofing's employees "detested" the prescribed fall protection mandated by the state because it was "unreasonable, burdensome and caused more danger than it was designed to alleviate."

But John Wiles, Division of Industrial Relations' attorney, disputed Dean's complaints over the July 19 citation.

"Our investigator, David Leazer, was driving down road to another site when he saw Dean Roofing's workers on a roof about 19 feet up and they weren't using fall protection... We have photographs of that... Had there been a fall, it would have been fatal."

"The standard requires for employees to wear a harness that has a safety line which is fastened to the roof," he said.

Other defendants also sued were Danny Evans, chief administrative officer of Occupational Safety and Health Enforcement section of the division; Jimmie Garrett, district manager of Clark County for the division, and 10 other agents of the Division of Industrial Relations.

Dean Roofing is seeking a permanent injunction to prevent the defendants from initiating any additional inspections of its workplace, preparing or filing any additional civil, administrative or criminal action or levying any fines or penalties against the company, or any act that disrupts or impairs the constitutional rights of the company.

The roofing contractor accused the defendants of "maliciously, oppressively and unconstitutionally misusing the enforcement powers of the State of Nevada" to allegedly deprive it of its constitutional right to a jury trial.

"The issues raised in the complaint have no merit. The U.S. Supreme Court decided there is no jury trial provided for in Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) cases," said Wiles. "Dean Roofing is claiming the Nevada State constitution gives them a right to jury trial, but that's not the case if it deals with OSHA Act of 1970."

Dean Roofing is also seeking compensation for time lost and business disruption in trying to comply with what it calls unreasonable regulations, excess wages paid to employees for additional time spent working and lost profits as a result of excessive costs in computing bids and buying fall protection devices.