Tuesday, January 13, 2026
Page 8
Perspectives
Cal/OSHA: a Den of Miscreants
By Roger M. Grace
Do you remember the Trevor Law Group? It was a Beverly Hills firm comprised of three lawyers who, in the early 2000s, threatened small businesses with whopping penalties through private enforcement of the Unfair Competition Law (since revised to curb abuses), securing nuisance settlements, generally of a few thousands of dollars. Supposed violations were generally trumped up or exaggerated.
Hiring lawyers to fight the bullies would have been far more expensive for the businesses than handing over money.
“The Trevor Law Group operates a shakedown operation designed to extract attorneys fees from law-abiding small business owners,” then-Attorney General Bill Lockyer said in 2003.
“The law firm sent letters that were extortionate to businesses demanding settlements,’’ he asserted.
The State Bar prodded the lawyers into resigning.
Many view the San Diego firm of Potter Handy as utilizing similar tactics in bringing a massive number of disability-discrimination lawsuits on behalf of its stable of plaintiffs in an effort to coerce small businesses into making payments.
An April 11, 2022 lawsuit brought by the district attorneys’ offices in Los Angeles and San Francisco counties, seeking to enjoin Potter Handy’s activities, alleged that “a shakedown” is “perpetrated by unethical lawyers who have abused their status as officers of the court.” (A San Francisco Superior Court judge held that the firm is protected by the litigation privilege, and the Court of Appeal affirmed.)
A judge of the District Court for the Southern District of California, in a case in which a Potter Handy client was suing under the Americans With Disabilities Act (“ADA”), made this observation in 2020:
“Although enacted with the most laudable of purposes, the ADA has regrettably produced unintended consequences, namely, extortion suits.”
Such suits are being brought throughout the nation.
I know of a small business that is the intended victim of a shakedown—the twist being that the attempt to exact money based on sham allegations is being made by a California governmental agency. What’s the business? The Metropolitan News Company (“MNC”), publisher of this newspaper. My wife and I own the company.
Is it right for somebody who buys ink by the barrel to use some of that ink to promote personal interests? In most instances, no. But here, a failure to use that ink would withhold information that ought to be disseminated, information as to improper—if not unlawful—doings by a unit of the state.
The culprit is the California Department of Industrial Relations’ Division of Occupational Safety and Health, better known as “Cal/OSHA.” Also implicated is the Occupational Safety and Health Appeals Board (“Cal/OSHA Appeals Board”), Those entities are two wings of one odd bird.
MNC is simply not going to cave in, despite the toll on us in resisting Cal/OSHA’s efforts. Our fight has been long—trumped up citations were issued on Nov. 28, 2023—and tiring. I undertook to handle the matter myself as MNC’s counsel, doing so at times clumsily, lacking any experience in the area. Had we utilized services of a law firm with expertise, such as Sheppard Mullin which has represented us ably in the past, it would have cost us, by now, hundreds of thousands of dollars in fees. That’s far in excess of what Cal/OSHA is seeking to sap from us.
Finding it difficult to imagine that we have been targeted for disparate treatment, I am wondering with what frequency Cal/OSHA seeks to squeeze money from businesses, as it has with us, by issuing citations predicated on false allegations of safety violations. And are there other state agencies also engaged in Trevor-like misconduct?
The aim of the lawyers who seek to intimidate their prey into forking over fruits of their labors is to personally profit, monetarily, while what I assume to be Cal/OSHA’s objective is to rack up large numbers of conquests, producing statistics justifying its budget.
★
The events giving rise to our conflict go back to July 31, 2023. That’s when an employee of ours fell from a ladder while changing light bulbs. He was seriously injured.
But there is no basis for ascribing fault to us. And, as it turns out, with respect to the charge that the ladder was not held, Cal/OSHA had knowledge of the falsity of the allegation—though it hid the fact of that knowledge for more than a year.
An inspector, one E. Rosalind Dimenstein, came to the premises, looked around, and conducted interviews. Three citations were issued. The major one is based on the supposed breach of a regulation that ladders, when in use, be secured. The key provision is this:
“The ladder shall be so placed as to prevent slipping, or it shall be tied, blocked, held, or otherwise secured to prevent slipping.”
In light of the assertion by our two employees that they were holding the ladder, and the phraseology of the regulation being in the alternative, here’s what’s relevant:
“The ladder shall be…held…to prevent slipping.”
Cal/OSHA issued a citation, alleging that “[p]rior to and/or during the course of the inspection, the employer did not ensure that all non-self-supporting ladders were placed in such a way as to prevent slipping or were tied, blocked, held, or otherwise secured to prevent slipping” and that “[a]s a result,” the accident occurred.
It classed the purported violation as “Serious Accident-Related,” assessing a penalty of $12,600.
It also demanded payment of $4,050 for the “Serious” infringement of a rule by not adequately training employees in the use of ladders—which was hogwash—and $225 for not keeping records of internal inspections.
Seeking to prod a settlement, Dimenstein told our general manager, Vahn Babigian, in a Dec. 21, 2023 email, that the penalty for inadequate training could “probably” be reduced “considerably,” pointing out:
“We can also offer you a Non-Admissions Clause if we settle the case. That can be helpful when there is other litigation related to the accident.
“If we go to hearing, we argue for the full penalty amount and we do not offer a non-Admissions Clause.”
We had 15 working days within which to appeal Cal/OSHA’s citations to the Appeals Board, and we filed a timely appeal—which should have been resolved by now, but the pace of the proceedings has been laggardly.
★
The notice of the citations advised of the availability of an informal conference with “the manager of the district office which issued the Citation,” that “if the citation is appealed, you may request an informal conference at any time prior to the day of the hearing,” which employers “are encouraged” to do.
I went one better than simply setting up an appointment to chat. I set forth our position in a three-and-a-half page letter to the acting district manager (who turned out to be Muhammad Zubair). Appended to it were a declaration under penalty of perjury from two MNC employees, each attesting to having held the ladder, one on each side, and indicating no awareness of what caused their co-worker to fall. There was a page from the deposition of the injured employee, in connection with his workers compensation claim in which he was asked, “Why do you think you fell?” to which he responded:
“I don’t know, I was just doing my work and then in the matter of a second I fell, boom.”
And there was a declaration from Babigian saying, in part:
“I was very concerned about the well-being of a long time 25+ year employee and visited Mr. Martinez in the hospital nearly every day for a number of weeks. In the course of conversations with him, his family members, and others—I don’t recall the source—I learned that Mr. Martinez had fallen off the roof of his residence in Mexicali a month or two earlier. I would note that these conversations took place at a time when I wasn’t thinking about the prospects of blame being ascribed to us by some governmental agency; at the moment I was just concerned for him getting the medical care he needed.
“He had never revealed to me any pre-existing medical problem and when I asked him to change light bulbs, he made no indication that he might have difficulty doing so. I would never have knowingly assigned him to a task that would put him in peril.
“I know of no facts indicating any violation on our part, let alone a ‘serious violation.’”
Babigian also disputed the allegation of a lack of training.
Zubair has never responded to the letter.
★
However, on July 17, 2024, he indicated in correspondence with others an intent to provide the “file”—I had asked for a copy of the inspection report—and I wrote to him:
“Rather than sending the file, it would be more appropriate to send an acknowledgement that the proceedings against us were launched improvidently and an advisement the file is being closed.”
He emailed back:
“Division does not intend to withdraw any citations. [¶] Case has been referred to our Legal Unit….”
On Oct. 9. 2024, I sent a letter to Debra Lee, chief of Cal/OSHA, complaining of Zubair’s unresponsiveness and other matters, protesting the action against us not having been dismissed, and pointing out, with respect to the action:
“There has been no explanation of Cal/OSHA’s rationale.”
No reply.
A copy of the letter went to Lisa Wong, attorney for Cal/OSHA in our matter. In an Oct. 28 email to her, I noted Cal/OSHA’s silence as to its rationale, and she shot back:
“I emailed a response to your email dated October 9, 2024. Check you inbox.”
No such email was received, as I advised her. She’s spurned my requests that she resend it. If such an email does, in fact, exist, why will she not provide it?
If there is another side to the story from what appears on the surface, I can’t imagine what it is.
★
A copy of the inspection report was not provided by Zubair. Discovery in Cal/OSHA matters is quite limited (no interrogatories, no requests for admissions), but requests for production are allowed. I sought the report, among other items. Responses were due on or before Dec. 18, 2024. Despite prodding, Wong did not comply until Feb. 7, 2025.
I can see why the report was not readily provided.
In her “investigation summary,” in response to the form question, “What was employee doing just before incident occurred?” Dimenstein wrote:
“Changing lightbulbs from a 24-foot extension ladder, standing about 8’ up on the ladder, while two coworkers held the base.”
At no point did she later contradict or question her finding.
Manifestly, the allegation in the citation that the ladder was not “held” was made in bad faith, with awareness that the factual predicate was false.
Penal Code §518 says that “extortion” includes “the obtaining of property or other consideration from another, with his or her consent,…under color of official right,” inferentially, by wrongful means.
Has Dimenstein, Zubair, or Wong committed an attempted extortion?
That question will be posed to the Office of Los Angeles County District Attorney, to which a link to the online version of this column will be provided today.
A link will also be sent to the State Bar of California. In the state Supreme Court’s 1935 decision in Barton v. State Bar of California, it was declared that conduct amounting to “an attempt to extort money” is a disciplinable offense (even if not criminally prosecuted)—and in that case, in light of prior discipline, disbarment was ordered. Wong has not had prior discipline.
Does she now warrant discipline based on her complicity in her client’s effort to exact funds from us and in maintaining a position that, in light of the inspection report, must be seen as faulty?
There has been claptrap and duplicity on the part of Cal/OSHA. There’s been foot-dragging by the administrative law judge attached to the Appeals Board, along with conduct by him that has triggered an effort by us to have him disqualified.
I’ll be 81 later this month and it might be that the battle with Cal/OSHA, which is bound to be resolved in the courts, will last longer than I will. But my wife and I have a daughter who’s a lawyer and she’s feisty. I’m confident that in the end, the perpetrators of the attempted shakedown, the state government’s version of the Trevor Law Group, will not prevail.
Copyright 2026, Metropolitan News Company