Trial News

The Michigan Court of Appeals upheld lower court and agency rulings denying DTE Energy’s appeal of a workplace safety violation. The court found the appeal was untimely and unsupported by sufficient good cause, rejecting the company’s arguments citing the applicability of the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. (DTE Energy v. Mich. Occupational Safety & Health Admin., No. 367604 (Mich. Ct. App. Nov. 18, 2024).)

The litigation stems from a Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Administration (MIOSHA) investigation into a fatal workplace incident involving a DTE employee. Following the investigation, MIOSHA issued safety citations to DTE on Nov. 21, 2021. Per Michigan law, employers are required to appeal such citations within 15 working days of receipt. The energy company received the citations at its Detroit office on Nov. 8, 2021, but did not file its appeal until Dec. 21, 2021—well beyond the deadline.

DTE argued its late appeal was due to MIOSHA’s failure to send the citations to the company’s legal counsel, despite an email exchange in which MIOSHA’s representative indicated the citations would be sent to both DTE’s Detroit office and its attorney. MIOSHA ultimately rejected DTE’s appeal as untimely.

An administrative law judge (ALJ) initially ruled in favor of DTE, citing “good cause” for the delay based on the company’s reliance on MIOSHA’s statements. However, the MIOSHA Board of Health and Safety Compliance and Appeals (Board) overturned the ALJ’s decision, finding DTE’s actions reflected carelessness and insufficient diligence. The trial court affirmed the Board’s ruling, and DTE appealed.

The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed. The court noted that DTE indisputably received the citations on Nov. 8 but failed to file its appeal by the Dec. 1 deadline. Michigan law makes clear that appeals must be filed within 15 working days, and failure to do so renders the citation final. Drawing from precedent in Lanzo Construction Co. v. Michigan Department of Labor, the court reiterated that “good cause” for late appeals must involve circumstances beyond the appellant’s control. The Board found that DTE’s reliance on MIOSHA’s email was insufficient to meet this standard, as the company still bore responsibility for ensuring timely filing. The appellate court agreed, highlighting DTE’s lack of diligence in tracking and responding to the citation.

DTE argued that the Board failed to adequately explain its reasoning. However, the appellate court found the Board had clearly detailed the case’s history, the relevant legal standards, and its rationale for rejecting DTE’s explanation. These findings, the court held, were sufficient for judicial review under Michigan law.

DTE also cited Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo—a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision ending the federal courts’ policy of agency deference—to argue for stricter judicial review of MIOSHA’s actions. The court dismissed this argument, explaining that Loper Bright dealt with federal law and agency authority, whereas the Michigan Supreme Court declined to adopt the Chevron doctrine in In re Complaint of Rovas. The court noted that the unambiguous statutory deadlines in the applicable Michigan law rendered any agency interpretation irrelevant to this case.