Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Atlas Roofing Co. v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission

Supreme Court of the United States · 1977 · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureSeventh AmendmentAdministrative AdjudicationSeventh Amendmentpublic rightsadministrative agencycivil penaltiesOSHA

Facts

Congress enacted OSHA after concluding that existing state statutory remedies and common-law negligence and wrongful death actions were inadequate to protect workers from unsafe working conditions. The Act created a new statutory duty to maintain safe workplaces and authorized the Government to seek abatement orders and civil penalties in administrative proceedings before the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, without a jury. Atlas was cited for a serious roofing-cover violation and Irey for a willful trenching violation, and both employers timely contested the citations at administrative hearings. The Commission ultimately affirmed the violations and assessed penalties, and the employers argued that the absence of a jury on the violation facts violated the Seventh Amendment.

Issue

Whether, consistent with the Seventh Amendment, Congress may create a new cause of action in the Government for civil penalties and assign its adjudication to an administrative agency in which no jury trial is available. More specifically, the question was whether OSHA's administrative enforcement scheme for abatement orders and civil penalties violates the Seventh Amendment.

Rule

When Congress creates new statutory public rights and provides for their enforcement by the Government in its sovereign capacity, it may assign factfinding and initial adjudication to an administrative agency with which a jury trial would be incompatible, without violating the Seventh Amendment. The Seventh Amendment preserves jury trial in suits at common law, but it does not make the jury the exclusive mechanism for factfinding in civil cases or bar Congress from enforcing new public rights outside courts of law.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Congress enacts the Chemical Transport Reporting Act after finding existing negligence suits inadequate to prevent hazardous spills. The statute creates a new federal duty to file route-safety plans, authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to seek abatement orders and civil penalties before the Freight Safety Review Board, and provides court-of-appeals review for substantial evidence. Red Mesa Logistics of Phoenix contests a penalty and demands a jury on whether it violated the statute.

How should a court rule on the jury demand?

Explanation. The majority held that when Congress creates new statutory public rights and authorizes the Government to enforce them in its sovereign capacity, Congress may assign factfinding and initial adjudication to an administrative forum where a jury would be incompatible. The presence of civil penalties does not itself trigger a jury right when the matter is a new public-rights enforcement scheme rather than an ordinary action at law.