At its core, the dispute was not whether employees were exposed to fall hazards, but whether the employer’s scaffold design satisfied the standard. The scaffolds at issue were equipped with dual suspension ropes and multiple automatic locking devices known as “blocstops,” designed to arrest a fall if a rope failed.  However, the system did not include the additional independent support lines expressly required by OSHA’s regulation. 

GBL argued that its design provided equal or superior protection. According to the testimony, the configuration used multiple locking devices along each rope, which would engage in the event of a failure and prevent a collapse. GBL further asserted that eliminating independent support lines reduced hazards associated with wind load, rope management, and worker distraction.

The Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) rejected these arguments outright. The ALJ emphasized that OSHA’s scaffold regulation is a specification standard. That distinction is critical. Unlike performance-based standards, specification standards require strict adherence to prescribed measures, regardless of whether an alternative method might arguably provide equivalent protection. As the decision makes clear, once noncompliance with a specification standard is established, the existence of a hazard is presumed.

The ALJ focused heavily on the plain language of the regulation. The requirement that scaffolds “shall be equipped” with additional independent support lines “when lanyards are connected to horizontal lifelines” was interpreted to mean exactly what it says: those lines must be present at the time employees are working, and not created or activated after a failure occurs.

GBL argued that an independent support line could effectively come into existence only after a suspension rope failure was deemed inconsistent with both the text and purpose of the standard. The ALJ characterized this interpretation as an impermissible attempt to rewrite the regulation.

Equally important was the rejection of the “greater hazard” defense. To succeed on this defense, an employer needs to show that compliance would create a greater hazard than noncompliance, that no alternative means of protection were available, and that a variance was unavailable or inappropriate. GBL failed on all three elements.

The decision highlights a common issue in construction safety when employers attempt to justify deviations from OSHA standards based on practical field considerations. Here, GBL argued that independent support lines could create operational hazards, including wind interference and increased complexity for workers handling materials. But the ALJ found these concerns insufficient, particularly where alternative measures such as managing lines with winders were available and had, in fact, been implemented after OSHA’s inspection.

While the GBL emphasized that its system could withstand a single-point failure, the ALJ credited testimony that multiple failure points, although though less common could still result in a complete scaffold collapse.

And that is the crux of fall protection enforcement. OSHA standards are designed to account for worst-case scenarios, not just likely ones. When workers are suspended dozens of stories above ground, even a low-probability event carries catastrophic consequences.

The violation was ultimately classified as serious, with the ALJ noting that scaffold collapse presents a substantial probability of death or serious physical harm and a monetary penalty was assessed. 

For employers, the lessons from this decision are clear: compliance with OSHA’s fall protection standards is not flexible. Even well-engineered systems that appear safer in practice will not satisfy a specification standard unless they meet its exact requirements.

Another lesson is that innovation must be paired with regulatory awareness. If a company believes its design improves safety, the proper course is to seek a variance or regulatory clarification and not to proceed under an assumption of equivalency.

A third lesson is that reliance on past practice or lack of prior citations offers no protection. OSHA’s failure to cite a condition in the past does not preclude enforcement in the future.

Finally, fall protection must be evaluated through the lens of failure, not success. Systems must be designed to protect workers not just when everything functions as intended, but when they do not.

About the author: Costas Cyprus, Esq., is a partner at the firm of Welby, Brady & Greenblatt, LLP, in White Plains, NY.   He practices construction law and commercial litigation and can be reached at 914-428-2100 and at ccyprus@wbgllp.com. The articles in this series do not constitute legal advice and are intended for general guidance only.

Published: April 21, 2026.