In the 1990 case of Lynn Martin, Secretary of Labor v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission et al., the U.S. Supreme Court addressed whether an employer could be cited for a safety violation when only employees were exposed to danger but not necessarily at risk due to their training and experience. The court ruled in favor of the Secretary of Labor, asserting that employers can indeed be held accountable for violations even if experienced workers are involved because it is still possible for accidents or unforeseen circumstances to occur despite employee expertise. This decision reinforced that under the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA), employers have a general duty to provide safe working conditions regardless of worker skill level.

In the dissenting opinion for Lynn Martin, Secretary of Labor v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission et al., Justice Marshall argued that the majority's decision to uphold an employer's right to refuse a warrantless inspection by OSHA officials was misguided. He believed it undermined Congress' intent when establishing OSHA - ensuring workers' safety through effective enforcement mechanisms. The majority’s interpretation required inspectors to obtain consent or a warrant before conducting any search, which he felt would hinder their ability to effectively enforce safety regulations and protect workers from hazardous conditions in real-time. Furthermore, he contended that this ruling could potentially allow employers with unsafe working conditions to evade detection simply by refusing entry without a warrant – something not easily obtained due to practical constraints faced by inspectors.