Industrial Hygiene Expert Witness Insights from Arriwite v. SME Steel: OSHA Violations & Wrongful Termination

Legal and Industrial Hygiene Overview

The case of Arriwite v. SME Steel Contractors, Inc. (Case No. 4:18-cv-00543-DCN) illustrates how inadequate workplace safety measures—particularly failures in PPE protocols—can escalate into complex litigation involving industrial hygiene, OSHA violations, and employment law.

Welder Daniel Arriwite raised serious concerns about the safety of welding with UltraCore 70C wire and the lack of proper personal protective equipment. His termination following those concerns resulted in a federal lawsuit alleging wrongful discharge and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

This case provides critical insights for attorneys, HR professionals, and occupational health experts navigating cases that intersect workplace safety, regulatory compliance, and legal liability.

Key Legal and Industrial Hygiene Developments in Arriwite v. SME Steel

1. Welding Assignment Raises OSHA Compliance Questions

   • Arriwite was assigned to perform welding tasks using UltraCore 70C wire, a material that requires strict safety measures.
   • He flagged the absence of required personal protective equipment (PPE) based on OSHA standards and manufacturer warnings, requesting enhanced protection.

2. PPE Shortcomings and Employee Refusal to Work

   • After voicing his concerns, Arriwite was reassigned and later sent home.
   • When he returned to work, he again declined to proceed without the requested PPE and was subsequently terminated.

3. OSHA Investigation and Regulatory Citations

   • Arriwite filed a complaint with OSHA, prompting an initial inspection that found no violations.
   • SME Steel later settled with OSHA and agreed to implement stricter safety protocols.

4. Federal Lawsuit: Claims and Summary Judgment Outcomes

   Arriwite sued SME Steel in federal court, alleging:

   • Wrongful termination in violation of public policy
   • Negligent infliction of emotional distress
   • Breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing
   • Wrongful discharge under OSHA (29 U.S.C. §660)

5. Court Rulings:

   • Claims I and III (Wrongful Termination & Breach of Covenant): Allowed to proceed to trial
   • Claims II and IV (Emotional Distress & OSHA Discharge): Dismissed via summary judgment

Expert Witness Roles in Workplace Industrial Hygiene Safety Lawsuits

Multiple types of expert witnesses are valuable in cases involving OSHA compliance and wrongful discharge:

1. Industrial Hygiene Expert Witnesses

   • Evaluate PPE adequacy and worker exposure to harmful substances like UltraCore 70C.
   • Compare workplace practices to OSHA and manufacturer standards.
   • Assess air quality, ventilation, and fume control systems.

2. Occupational Safety & Health Expert Witnesses

   • Interpret OSHA regulations and apply them to jobsite practices.
   • Offer opinions during litigation or regulatory proceedings.

3. Human Resources & Employment Policy Expert Witnesses

   • Analyze whether discipline or termination aligned with company policies and industry norms.
   • Review employer adherence to due process and safety commitments.

4. Vocational and Economic Expert Witnesses

   • Calculate lost earnings, future employment impact, and economic damages.
   • These experts offer critical clarity in both regulatory investigations and employment law litigation, helping courts and juries understand technical and procedural nuances.

Legal Takeaways for Attorneys and Safety Experts

1. Industrial Hygiene in Legal Contexts

   • Legal decisions can turn on whether employers followed proper hazard control procedures and OSHA-mandated safety practices.
   • Evaluations of PPE adequacy, ventilation systems, and hazard communication protocols are often pivotal.

2. Expert Testimony in Workplace Safety Litigation

   • Courts rely heavily on expert witnesses to explain technical evidence, such as PPE requirements or welding hazard exposure.

3. Public Policy and Unsafe Work Refusals

   • This case examined whether refusing unsafe work qualifies for protection under Idaho’s public policy exception to at-will employment.

4. Internal Policies as Legal Evidence

   • Employer safety manuals, although not contracts, may be used to assess whether internal standards were breached.

5. Documentation in Summary Judgments

   • Detailed factual records, especially from expert declarations, play a critical role in surviving motions for summary judgment.

Conclusion

The Arriwite case serves as a powerful example of how employee safety complaints—when not handled properly—can lead to OSHA violations, wrongful termination claims, and substantial litigation.

It reinforces the importance of clear internal safety policies, strong documentation, and Industrial Hygiene expert witness support in cases involving complex industrial hygiene issues. For attorneys, this case highlights the value of collaborating with experts who can provide OSHA-aligned evaluations and courtroom-defensible insights.