Preserving CHASE Rescission Eligibility After a MNOSHA Citation
Category | Briefing Papers
By Matthew G. Nelson
Matt is a shareholder of the firm’s Construction Law Department. He can be reached at 612.359.7611 or mnelson@fwhtlaw.com
Introduction
Effective safety programs prevent injuries and save lives. They also improve productivity, reduce disruption, strengthen workforce morale, and help contractors avoid the substantial direct and indirect costs of workplace accidents. Responsible contractors therefore invest significant time and resources in safety programs that go well beyond minimum regulatory requirements.
Minnesota contractors have another tool available to advance these goals: the Construction Health and Safety Excellence Minnesota program, known as “CHASE.” CHASE is a voluntary partnership between the Associated General Contractors of Minnesota (“AGC”) and the Occupational Safety and Health Division of the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry (“MNOSHA”). Its stated purpose is to improve safety and health in the construction industry by “reducing serious injuries, illnesses and fatalities through collaboration, mentorship, education, and implementation of best practices that go above and beyond industry standards.” The program also seeks to recognize contractors whose managers and employees work together to develop safety and health systems that exceed minimum OSHA requirements.
CHASE rewards contractors for making that investment. Depending on participation level, benefits include recognition from AGC and MNOSHA, relief from penalties for nonserious violations, maximum available good-faith penalty reductions, added settlement options for serious citations, and opportunities to participate in MNOSHA’s Cooperative Compliance Partnership Program.
One CHASE incentive is particularly significant. Level 2 or 3 participating contractors that receive a serious citation that resolves as nonserious during an informal conference may elect to undertake specified supervisory training and demonstrate implementation of their AWAIR (A Workplace Accident and Injury Reduction) program. Once the required documentation is provided, the CHASE Agreement states that the resulting nonserious citation and penalty will be “rescinded from the company’s record.”
That is a meaningful incentive. However, access to it depends not only on satisfying the substantive requirements of the CHASE Agreement but also on navigating MNOSHA’s notice-of-contest procedures precisely. Otherwise, MNOSHA may take the position that CHASE benefits cannot override statutory and regulatory requirements, even after a contractor takes the steps necessary under CHASE to obtain those benefits as part of its post-citation informal conference with MNOSHA.
Contesting a MNOSHA Citation
Minnesota law gives a contractor (or any employer) 20 calendar days to initiate a contest of a MNOSHA citation. Minnesota Statutes, section 182.661, requires the commissioner to notify the employer that it has 20 days to file a notice of contest, on a form provided by the commissioner, “indicating that the employer wishes to contest the citation, type of violation, proposed assessment of penalty, or the period of time fixed in the citation given for correction of violation.” Minn. Stat. § 182.661, subd. 1. If no notice of contest is filed within that period, “the citation and assessment, as proposed, shall be deemed a final order of the commissioner and not subject to review by any court or agency.” Id.
While the statute does not expressly address what happens when an employer contests some but not all of those matters, MNOSHA enforces “partial finality” under which any matter not contested at the outset becomes a “final order” immune from later amendment or review. This partial-finality stems from MNOSHA’s implementing rule and notice-of-contest form.
Minnesota Rule 5210.0533 requires an employer to identify “for each citation…it is contesting: (a) the finding of a violation; (b) the type of violation; (c) the abatement date; or (d) the penalty.” Minn. R. 5210.0533, subp. (C)(1). The rule states “those parts of citations and items not contested shall become a final order of the commissioner not reviewable by any court or agency.” Minn. R. 5210.0533, subp. (C).
MNOSHA’s notice-of-contest form follows suit and divides a citation into four separate components: “Citation,” “Type of Violation,” “Abatement Date,” and “Penalty.” Employers are instructed to check whichever portions they intend to contest. The form also states:
FAILURE TO CHECK ANY PART WILL RESULT IN THAT PART OF THE CITATION BECOMING A FINAL ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER THAT IS NOT REVIEWABLE BY ANY COURT OR AGENCY.
Under the rule and form, then, individual portions of a citation may become final even when the employer timely contested another portion.
That distinction matters under the CHASE program.
Implications for Pursuit of the CHASE Rescission Benefit
The CHASE program incentivizes contractor participation by providing certain benefits to partnering contractors. For contractors participating in the CHASE program at levels 2 or 3, maximum good-faith penalty reduction, and rescission of serious violations that settle as nonserious, are among these benefits.
But suppose a Level 2 contractor receives a MNOSHA citation classified as a serious violation, with a monetary penalty. The contractor does not dispute that the cited condition existed, and so it does not check the “Citation” box on the notice-of-contest form. The contractor does, however, dispute MNOSHA’s characterization of the condition as “serious.” Based on the circumstances of the work, safeguards in place, duration of exposure, and likely consequences of the cited condition, the contractor believes the violation should be classified as nonserious.
The contractor therefore timely files a notice of contest and checks the box marked “Type of Violation,” but does not check the box marked “Penalty.” That makes sense. The contractor’s principal disagreement is with the classification, and if the violation is properly classified as nonserious rather than serious, the applicable penalty will change with it.
The parties proceed to an informal conference. MNOSHA agrees that the violation should be reclassified from serious to nonserious. And, because of that reclassification, MNOSHA also agrees to reduce the monetary penalty to zero.
So far, so good.
The contractor then pursues rescission of the citation under CHASE. It timely completes the specified supervisory training, provides the required AWAIR documentation, and requests rescission of the nonserious citation which the CHASE Agreement expressly provides:
When the employer has provided this documentation, the nonserious citation and penalty will be rescinded from the company’s record.
But MNOSHA refuses. Why? Because the contractor checked “Type of Violation” on the notice-ofcontest form but did not separately check “Citation.” MNOSHA takes the position that the underlying citation itself became final after 20 days and therefore can no longer be rescinded, notwithstanding the CHASE language and the contractor’s compliance with it.
There is an asymmetry to this result.
MNOSHA treats the unchecked “Citation” portion as a final, unreviewable order because it was not separately contested. But it does not treat the unchecked “Penalty” portion the same way. Even though the contractor did not contest the penalty, MNOSHA reduces the penalty to zero once it reclassifies the violation from serious to nonserious. MNOSHA would likely explain that the penalty follows from the classification, while the existence of the violation does not.
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes famously observed that “[t]he life of the law has not been logic: it has been experience.” Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., The Common Law 1 (1881). The point is apt here. Whatever the merits of that distinction, contractors need to understand the system as MNOSHA administers it, and the implications that administration may have upon their ability to obtain CHASE benefits.
For CHASE participants, the practical question is not whether MNOSHA’s construction is the best reading of the statute, or even a reasonable one. The more immediate issue is how MNOSHA will administer the CHASE agreement and the benefits for which participating contractors have bargained. Participants should assume that MNOSHA will apply its notice-of-contest procedures in deciding whether CHASE benefits remain available. Under MNOSHA’s current approach, a Level 2 or 3 contractor that does not contest the entire citation should expect to lose the rescission benefit.
2026 Revisions to the CHASE Agreement
This issue, and the tension it engenders, became more visible when the CHASE Agreement was revised in July 2026.
The prior edition of the CHASE Agreement (July 2012) provided that Level 2 participants receiving serious citations, which then settled as nonserious, could undertake specified supervisory retraining, provide documentation concerning the training and their AWAIR program, and then have the citation rescinded from their record.
The 2026 revisions to the CHASE Agreement retains the rescission benefit for Level 2 and 3 participants, but adds this sentence:
The entire citation must be contested to receive any reduction.
The addition appears designed to address the problem described above. But the revised language does not appear to completely resolve the issue.
For example, what does “the entire citation” mean? MNOSHA’s form presents four separate boxes: Citation, Type of Violation, Abatement Date, and Penalty. If “entire citation” means every component on the form, must a Level 2 or 3 CHASE contractor check all four boxes, even where it would not otherwise dispute, say, the abatement date, in order to preserve its ability to obtain the CHASE rescission benefit? Or does “entire citation” here merely mean that the contractor must at least check “Citation” in addition to “Type of Violation” on MNOSHA’s notice-of-contest form? If so, another question follows: why would contesting the “Citation” not necessarily place its classification in issue, in the same way that contesting the “Type of Violation” but not “Penalty” nevertheless permits MNOSHA to reduce the penalty if it reduces the classification, whether or not 20 days have passed? The components identified on the form are not entirely independent of one another; the type of violation describes the citation itself, and the penalty ordinarily follows, at least in part, from that classification.
In addition, the new provision states that the entire citation must be contested to receive any “reduction.” But the CHASE rescission benefit is not simply a reduction; it removes the citation from the contractor’s record.
The revised language therefore points contractors in the right direction but does not fully align the CHASE Agreement with MNOSHA’s notice-of-contest form and enforcement.
The Takeaway
CHASE remains an important and worthwhile safety partnership. Its central purpose is to foster better safety programs, better training, better communication, and fewer injuries and fatalities on Minnesota construction sites. The current CHASE Agreement expressly emphasizes collaboration, mentorship, education, and practices that go beyond minimum industry standards.
The incentives nevertheless matter. They are part of the bargain that encourages contractors to invest in the enhanced safety programs required for CHASE participation. Contractors therefore need to protect their ability to receive those incentives.
When a CHASE contractor receives a citation and intends to challenge any portion of it, the contractor should carefully consider not only the substantive issue it disputes, but also the consequences of leaving any box unchecked. A Level 2 or 3 participating contractor challenging a citation’s classification as “serious” should not assume that checking only “Type of Violation” will preserve its right to obtain rescission. Until MNOSHA or AGC clarifies the 2026 language, the safest course for a contractor that may seek rescission under CHASE is to check all four boxes.
That is true even though the several components of a citation do not always operate independently in practice. A successful challenge to the “Type of Violation” may result in MNOSHA agreeing to modify an otherwise uncontested “Penalty” in lockstep with the reclassification. Yet MNOSHA may simultaneously take the position that an uncontested “Citation” became final and therefore cannot later be eligible for rescission, under the CHASE Agreement or otherwise.
Therefore, it is important for Level 2 and 3 CHASE participants receiving a serious citation:
• Calendar the 20-day contest deadline immediately on receipt.
• Contact counsel before filing the notice of contest.
• If rescission may be sought, contest the citation itself, not just the type of violation. Consider
checking all four boxes.
• Confirm the CHASE rescission pathway in the informal conference and settlement agreement.
In the MNOSHA contest process, twenty days pass quickly. And sometimes the most consequential part of the form is the box that was never checked.
Announcements
Congratulations to Fabyanske’s Westra, Hart & Thomson’s P.A.’s Julia Douglass for being elected as a new Fellow of the American College of Construction Lawyers
On September 3rd, Julia was announced as an elected Fellow by the ACCL board.
Fellowship is extended by invitation to those who are found to have mastered the practice or the teaching of construction law and dispute resolution in the complex technical and legal fields pertaining to the built environment, whose professional careers have been marked by the highest standards of ethical conduct, scholarship, professionalism, and collegiality, and who have demonstrated a commitment to “give back” to the construction industry.
Fabyanske, Westra, Hart & Thomson, P.A. is pleased to announce the following thirteen attorneys have been selected as Best Lawyers by their peers in the recent Best Lawyers© publication, one of the oldest and most respected peer-review publications in the legal profession: Scott Anderson, Mark Becker, Hugh Brown, Matt Collins, Julia Douglass, Rory Duggan, Gary Eidson, Kyle Hart, Jeffrey Jones, Jesse Orman, Robert Smith, Dean Thomson, and Katie Welsch. Also, congratulations to Rob Smith for being named “Lawyer of the Year” by Best Lawyers® for Litigation – Construction, Minneapolis (2027) and to Katie Welsch for being named “Lawyer of the Year” by Best Lawyers® for Banking and Finance Law, Minneapolis (2027)
Congratulations to Fabyanske, Westra, Hart & Thomson, P.A. attorneys who have been named The Best Lawyers in America: Ones to Watch (2027 Edition). They are Alexander Athmann and Colin Bruns.