California’s “UCL defines ‘unfair competition’ as ‘any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising.’ [Citation.] By proscribing ‘any unlawful’ business act or practice (ibid.), the UCL ‘“ borrows”‘ rules set out in other laws and makes violations of those rules independently actionable.”
The District Attorney of a jurisdiction also may use another section of the UCL, section 17204, to collect statutory penalties; private litigants cannot. Such penalties are in addition to whatever other remedies are available.
The opinion in Solus Industrial Innovations LLC v. Superior Court is here.
Per the Court of Appeal in Solus Industrial Innovations LLC v. Superior Court, here's what happened:
Solus makes plastics at an Orange County manufacturing facility. In 2007, Solus installed an electric water heater intended for residential use at the facility. In March 2009, that water heater exploded, killing two workers instantly in what district attorney refers to as an “untimely and horrific death.”
As a result, Cal-OSHA investigated and fined Solus. Because there was a death, Cal OSHA also referred the case to the district attorney, who prosecuted company officials. But the DA also brought a civil action for penalties under the UCL.
The company argued that federal OSHA preempts the UCL claim. Federal OSHA preempts all workplace safety laws. However, the Secretary of Labor may approve a state plan to substitute for the federal enforcement scheme, under certain conditions.
The problem for the DA is that the Secretary of Labor did not consider or approve private enforcement under the UCL by a DA. Rather, it approved the Cal OSHA enforcement scheme. Therefore, the Court of Appeal held that the DA could not maintain a civil claim for penalties under the UCL based on a workplace safety violation subject to Cal OSHA's jurisdiction.
Here's the money quote:
In light of our determination that state regulation of workplace safety standards is explicitly preempted by federal law under the OSH Act, and that consequently California is entitled to exercise its regulatory power only in accordance with the terms of its federally approved workplace safety plan, we conclude the district attorney cannot presently rely on the UCL to provide an additional means of penalizing an employer for its violation of workplace safety standards.So, the Secretary of Labor would have to approve a modification to the California OSH law. I imagine that could occur if California acts to make the change and submits it to our current administration. But we'll have to wait and see.
The opinion in Solus Industrial Innovations LLC v. Superior Court is here.