Case Study Unit VII Dannie Garnett.

Dannie T. Garnett Columbia Southern University Unit VII Case Study Analyze the case of SeaWorld of Florida v. Perez, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 6660 (D.C. Cir.) located in your textbook on pp. 554–558, including the opinion of Judge Rodgers as well as the dissenting opinion of Judge Kavanaugh. The case of SeaWorld of Florida v. Perez in 2014, created a lot of buzz with the media. Following the death of one of SeaWorld’s trainers while working in close contact a killer whale during a performance, the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission found that SeaWorld had violated the general duty clause of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 by exposing the trainers to recognized hazards when working in close contact with killer whales during performances, and that the abatement procedures recommended by the Secretary of Labor were feasible (Walsh, D. J. (2016) The Secretary of Labor would issue at least three citations to SeaWorld after the investigation was completed. Only the second the citation is at issue, it alleged two instances of a “willful” violation of the general duty clause for exposing animal trainers to the recognized hazards of drowning or injury when working with killer whales during performances (Walsh, D. J (2016). The plaintiff has no standard that regulates employees while working with killer whales in close contact and the Secretary had found no evidence of SeaWorld committing any illegal conduct towards its employee safety. The general duty clause of the Occupational Safety and Health Act provides: “Each employee shall furnish to each of his employees employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to its employees. (Walsh, D.J (2016). This act really provides protection for the employees who are