A contractor in California failed to show that the installation of solar panels qualified as “roofing work”, which would have looser fall protection standards for employees.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco denied a petition to review an Occupational Safety and Review Commission’s final order affirming an OSHA citation for violating fall protection standards.

Bergelectric was hired to install solar panels on the roof of a hanger in San Diego, CA. Inspectors were told that employees were using warning lines and a safety monitor to comply with fall protection obligations and employees indicated they would use personal fall arrest systems (PFAS) if they moved outside the warning lines. Inspectors found no employees using PFAS and did not find guardrails or safety nets in place. They received a citation alleging three serious violations of fall protection hazards – one of which was based on standards for unprotected sides and edges of roofs and two of which were based on standards for low-sloped roofs which are not as strict. They received a $3,000 penalty.

Bergelectric argued that their installation was on a low-sloped roof, which are subject to laxer standards than work on unprotected sides and edges. The court determined that the installation of solar panels did not qualify as performing “roofing work” and so Bergelectric violated the fall standard because they failed to use personal fall arrest systems, safety nets or guardrails. “Roofing work” does not extend to all materials and equipment that could be applied atop a roof, but “roofing” materials and equipment. Since the company’s activities were not roofing related the less strict standards were not applicable and the company did not comply with the stricter safety standards that governs work on unprotected sides and edges.

Read the court case here.