legal developments Safety insight: Never turn a blind eye to a staff member’s report of a potential safety problem – you want your people to feel comfortable telling you about potential hazards. What happened: A crew member observed a coworker standing next to an unsecured load positioned on the forks of a forklift. Because of where his colleague was standing, the crew member thought the coworker would be seriously injured if the load fell off the truck. He told his supervisor that allowing the staffer to stand next to the unstable load was a potential safety violation. What people did: The man’s supervisor refused to investigate his complaint of a possible safety violation. Instead, the supervisor said the crew member who told him about the situation was bullying the coworker who committed the violation. The worker who reported the problem was suspended, then terminated for alleged poor performance, even though he’d never been cited for a performance issue during his 20 years of employment with the organization. Legal challenge: The fired crew member sued for whistleblower retaliation. Result: The company lost. The court said the staff member was probably let go because he reported a safety problem, which meant the employer violated laws that protect whistleblowers. The judge ruled that the poor- performance explanation for his termination lacked merit – the employee had never been cited for a performance-related issue. The skinny: Courts usually take a dim view of organizations that play hard ball with crew members who want to prevent their coworkers from suffering debilitating injuries. Cite: Wimmer v. New Millennium Building Systems LLC, U.S. District Court, W.D. Virginia, No. 7:25-cv- 599, 6/22/26. horror stories Summary As her son was lying in the street near death from a work-related injury, a mom rushed to the job site to kiss him one last time. The incident With only two days left working as a laborer for ICON Construction and Development, Lucas Gray, 18, of West Linn, OR, was looking forward to starting college at the University of Utah, where he planned to major in business. Meanwhile, Gray and another staff member had been told to clean out valve boxes located about 2.5 feet beneath the road at a job site in Oregon City, OR. To perform the task, the staffers had to lie flat on the ground in the middle of an intersection and pull rocks and debris from the valve openings. A short distance away, another crew member was operating a 30,500-pound wheel loader with a forklift attachment. The operator maneuvered the wheel loader up a slight incline in the direction of Gray, who was lying on the ground facing the opposite direction. The driver of the wheel loader didn’t notice Gray as the huge vehicle drove over his body and crushed his skull into the ground. The response The wheel loader traveled about 5 to 8 feet past Gray before the operator realized that something bad had happened. He jumped from the cab and called out for help. Emergency responders arrived a short time later, but the 18-year-old was already dead from his severe head injuries. The aftermath When she heard that her son had been injured on the job, Catherine Gray, Lucas’s mother, rushed to the work site to see her son. She later recalled her last seconds with him. “I kissed him on the head and I feel like he said to me, ‘Mom, I’m here,’ and I said, ‘Where are you?’ and he said, ‘I’m with Jesus, and it’s beautiful.’” August 3, 2026 Safety Alert for Supervisors 3 You make the call: The decision (See case on page 1) No. The company lost. The Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission refused to dismiss the citation, and the commission’s decision was upheld by a court. The judge said the employer didn’t annually torque test the bolts on the equipment to ensure they were tight, as advised by the manufacturer. The contention by the organization that the equipment failed due to a design defect wasn’t persuasive, said the court, because it didn’t matter why the boom fell; it only mattered that the employer wasn’t providing its crew members with a safe workplace by annually torque testing the bolts. The company’s failure to keep its people safe was a safety violation, no matter the reason for the failure of the equipment. What it means: Always adhere to instructions You can lower the chances that a member of your crew will get hurt by strictly following manufacturers’ instructions for hazardous equipment. In this case, the employer ignored the manufacturer’s manual, and a worker paid with his life. The deal: Manufacturers are usually well aware of the unique hazards posed by their equipment, so their instructions are usually sound and based on the actual use of their machines in the real world. Based on Henkels & McCoy v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission. Was employee fired because he reported safety violation? Mother rushed to work site to kiss her son one last time