Essay Example on 9/11 WTC Attack: Occupational Hazards & Litigation

After the attack on September 11, 2001, on the World Trade Centre (WTC), multiple occupational health and safety challenges faced the City of New York. Rescue workers, police officers, firefighters who responded to the emergency filed a suit against Silverstone, the leaseholder of WTC, and NYC, and four contractors hired to oversee the rescue and recovery mission for illnesses they contracted from exposure to harmful substances at ground zero (Depalma, 2006). On the one hand, NYC claims that it provided the responders with appropriate PPE, including gas respirators, to protect themselves; however, given the high temperatures and poor visibility at ground zero, most of the responders refused to use the respirators. Therefore, under the Fireman's Act, the employers claimed they were immune to prosecution. On the other hand, the complainants' lawyers claimed that there was enough evidence to show that NYC was negligent in providing an organized distribution of PPEs and enforcing their use among is employees; thus violating the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA). Given that NYC and its contracting agencies failed to provide their employees with respirators and lacked polices to enforce their use, they exposed the responders to imminent health risks at or near ground zero, which made them fully liable for the damages accrued by their workers.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

The lawsuit by more than 10,000 ground zero responders was necessary since NYC failed to adhere to occupational health and safety standards (Depalma, 2006). The plaintiffs claim that they were exposed to harmful substances at ground zero since NYC did not have adequate respirators for them to use. The lawsuit named Silverstone, the leaseholder of WTC, and NYC, and four contractors hired to oversee the rescue and recovery mission, who failed to uphold safety precautions necessary to protect the workers. Notably, the collapse of the towers produced widely toxic dust that affected residents of Lower Manhattan ("Use of respiratory," 2002). The dust was an alkaline mixture of gypsum, crushed concrete, synthetic vitreous fibers, which was caused by low-velocity air and physical disturbance. Inhaled dust was deposited in the lung or swallowed, which caused chemical and physical irritation on the inhalers. Many rescue, recovery, residents, clean-up, and office workers reported both chronic and acute health complications. Probe reports show that NYC did not avail of the necessary respirator equipment for first responders. As a result, they were exposed to occupational health issues. The case shows the heroic efforts of NYC in the September 11 attack; however, its unpreparedness, lack of proper response policies, and its failure to ensure workers' safety did not go unnoticed (Depalma, 2006). The plaintiffs' lawyers claimed that it was the responsibility of the employer to ensure there were enough respirators for sue during the nine-month recovery process (Depalma, 2006). Additionally, NYC lacked a central point for mask distribution, which confused. The situation led to a fraction of the workers engaging in the rescue mission at ground zero without any respirators.

Moreover, during the first few days after the WTC attack, only dust masks and few PPE for firefighters. Nevertheless, firefighters' PPE, which comprised of a Scott pack and full face mask was not adequate for the 9 months' process. Some fighters confessed of buying dust masks for themselves since there were no adequate respirators. Notably, Stephen Cassidy, the Uniformed Firefighters Association president claimed that the NYC department only provided particle masks for its workers during the first few months. Additionally, the plaintiffs' lawyers produced evidence of records revealing that NYC ordered 10000 replacement filter cartridges and 5000 respirators that cost less than $50 each on September 28 (Depalma, 2006). However, the order was processed about two months later, revealing that the city failed to ensure its employee safety. According to a CDC report, the respirators available during the first day of the collapse was the disposable mask. The report shows 58% of firefighters present during the first day wore a disposable mask as opposed to respiratory protection ("Use of respiratory," 2002). In the next two weeks, the use of disposable masks decreased as the utilization of half-face respirators increased. The survey shows the negligence of the contracted agencies and NYC in ensuring that their workers had protective gear while working.

The contracted agencies were also liable for the health damages of its workers since it failed to advocate for the use of PPE. It is the responsibility of an organization to ensure that its employees abide by standard safety procedures in their working areas. During the rescue and recovery period, most workers ignored the directives to use respirators claiming that the temperature was not favorable ("Use of respiratory," 2002). Nevertheless, the contractors cannot use workers' refusal to wear respirators as a defense since it is responsible for ensuring that all its employees abide by OSHA guidelines. According to a survey conducted by the center for disease control (CDC), 57% of responders present at the collapse of the WTC claimed that they did not have any respiratory protection. Additionally, 38% of those who arrived later also reported not having the respirators ("Use of respiratory," 2002). The situation amounts to negligence on the part of the employer, which is punishable by law. Emergency response departments should have well-developed guidelines and policies that enforce the use of PPE, while in the field. They should also have team leaders who are responsible for ensuring that all procedures are followed to enhance occupational safety. For instance, the employer would have dismissed any worker who failed to use PPEs or did not meet the duty requirements to work in the affected area.

Noticeably, the city of New York and its contracted agencies could not have used the Fireman's Act to shield themselves from the litigation. Although the Fireman's Act prevents emergency responders from suing persons whose negligence caused an emergency incident, contributed to their injury by something they did at the event or created a hazard that contributed to their injury at the scene (Clark, 2019; Depalma, 2006). In this case, the contracted agencies' negligence amounted to the gross misconduct of an employer since they failed to provide personal protective equipment for its employees. The employees had the right to demand compensation given that the contracting agencies were aware of the impending health risks at or near ground zero, yet they failed to provide respirators on time. The OSHA Act stipulates that an employer should ensure that each employee of their place of employment is free from recognized hazards that are likely to cause physical harm or death ("OSH Act of 1970," n.d). The hazards may include exposure to excessive noise levels, toxic chemicals, mechanical dangers, unsanitary conditions, or heat and cold stress. Notably, all the evidence provided by the plaintiff and CDC studies reveals that NYC and its contracted agencies failed to comply with the OSHA Act, making them completely liable for the injuries inflicted on the workers.

Conclusion

Overall, the lawsuit against NYC, its contracted agencies, and WTC owners were justified since they acted with utter negligence, which inflicted long term injuries on their workers. The employers failed to provide their emergency responders with appropriate PPEs despite knowing that their site of work hampered many health risks. They also failed to enforce the use of PPE and did not have active policies Confessions and research reports about the first responders at the WTC reveal sheer negligence and lack of preparedness on the part of New York City. The defendants could not use the Fireman's Act to their defense albeit it shields them from claims of injuries contracted during an emergency response. They are liable for injuries because they failed to provide a safe workplace and exposed their workers to many health risks at ground zero. Luckily, the plaintiffs won the suit and managed to get a settlement to cater for their medical needs. It is the responsibility of every employer to ensure that their employees work in a hazard-free environment.

References

Clark, J. R. (2019). The Fireman's Rule. Air Medical Journal, 38(1), 10-11. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amj.2018.11.015

Depalma, A. (2006). Air masks at issue in claims of 9/11 illnesses. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/05/nyregion/05masks.html

OSH Act of 1970. (n.d). Retrieved from https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/oshact/completeoshactUse of respiratory protection among responders at the World Trade Center site New York City, September 200. (2002). Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm51SPa2.htm