Wage & Hour
OSHA May Subpoena Records to Decide Its Own Jurisdiction
Updated
In Division of Occupational Safety and Health v. Uber Technologies, Inc., the Second District Court of Appeal held that Cal/OSHA may issue an administrative subpoena to investigate a worker’s death—including to determine whether the worker was an employee or an independent contractor—without first obtaining a declaratory judgment on that question. The court affirmed the order compelling production, but reversed it to the extent it ordered every requested document without limitation, and remanded for the trial court to reconsider the scope of the requests.
Background
Dino Park made deliveries through Uber’s app-based platform. In May 2023, after completing a delivery, he fell down a flight of stairs and died several days later from his injuries. The Los Angeles County Coroner’s Office notified the Division of Occupational Safety and Health (OSHA) of the death.
OSHA tried to arrange a meeting with Uber to discuss Park’s employment status and the circumstances of his death, but Uber declined. OSHA then served an administrative subpoena under Government Code section 11181, subdivision (e), and Labor Code section 6314, subdivision (c), seeking 20 categories of records. Uber produced nothing and responded only with objections.
OSHA petitioned the Los Angeles County Superior Court to compel compliance. While the petition was pending, OSHA also issued Uber a citation under Labor Code section 6317 for failing to report the death and for lacking an injury and illness prevention program, with civil penalties of roughly $6,000. The trial court granted the petition and ordered production of all 20 categories without limitation; Uber appealed.
What the Court Held on OSHA’s Authority to Subpoena
Uber argued that OSHA lacked authority because Park was an independent contractor under the Protect App-Based Drivers and Services Act (Business and Professions Code section 7451), and that OSHA should have obtained a declaratory judgment establishing that Park was an employee before issuing any subpoena.
The court rejected that view. Drawing on long-settled authority, it explained that an agency may investigate and subpoena records to determine whether an entity is subject to its jurisdiction in the first place. OSHA had a mandatory duty to investigate Park’s death, and that duty included resolving whether Uber was his employer.
The court also rejected Uber’s argument that OSHA had to carry the burden of proving Park was an employee. Section 7451 places no such burden on OSHA while it is still investigating the facts relevant to its own jurisdiction.
OSHA may issue and enforce an administrative subpoena to determine whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor under Business and Professions Code section 7451. It need not first obtain a declaratory judgment, and it does not bear the burden of proving employment while investigating its own jurisdiction.
What the Court Held on the Scope of the Subpoena
The court also rejected Uber’s argument that Labor Code section 6314, subdivision (c), permits subpoenas only in connection with an on-site inspection. The statute’s language is unambiguous and authorizes subpoenas “for the purpose of carrying out the duties of the division,” consistent with OSHA’s broad subpoena power under Government Code section 11181. The court likewise held the subpoena was not mooted by OSHA’s later citation, because the six-month deadline in section 6317, subdivision (e)(1), applies only to issuing a citation or notice.
OSHA did not prevail entirely, however. The trial court had ordered production of all 20 categories without limitation, and the record did not adequately explain how broadly worded requests—particularly those reaching records about Uber’s customers and platform users—were relevant to Park’s status or death. The court reversed that part of the order and remanded for the trial court to reconsider the scope of the requests under the governing relevance and definiteness standards.
What This Means for You
This decision establishes that Cal/OSHA may issue an administrative subpoena to determine whether an app-based worker is an employee or an independent contractor, without first securing a declaratory judgment on that question. It also confirms that such a subpoena need not be tied to an on-site inspection, while requiring trial courts to test broad document requests for relevance and definiteness.
I write these summaries as general information about developments in California employment law. They are not legal advice and don’t create a mediator–client relationship. For guidance on a specific matter, consult a qualified attorney.