Photo of Daniel W. Wolff

Daniel W. Wolff

Subscribe to Daniel W. Wolff's Posts

Dan Wolff represents clients facing enterprise-level risks arising out of government enforcement actions and complex commercial disputes. He is a problem solver who understands how to use litigation, whether as plaintiff or defendant, to achieve exceptional business solutions and outcomes. Dan leads the firm’s administrative law litigation practice, counseling clients and litigating on their behalf in federal and state courts around the country in matters arising under the Administrative Procedure Act, other federal statutes, and the U.S. Constitution. He also litigates commercial disputes and matters arising in tort. He has deep experience arguing dispositive motions and appeals, in addition to trying jury cases. Notably, The National Law Journal named Dan a Political Activism and First Amendment Rights Trailblazer.

Beyond the courtroom, clients also seek Danʼs counsel in government investigations of workplace accidents, fatalities, supervisor liability, and requests for company records.

Dan serves on the firm's Public Service Committee and maintains an active pro bono practice. In recent years, he has focused on civil rights impact litigation, helping to secure victories or favorable settlements under the First Amendment, § 1983, and the Voting Rights Act.

Immediately following law school, Dan clerked for two years in the Southern District of Ohio for the Honorable Walter H. Rice. He is licensed to practice in the District of Columbia and Ohio and is also a member of the bars of multiple federal courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court.

Follow:Read more about Daniel W. WolffDaniel's Linkedin Profile

On November 4, 2021, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) released its much-anticipated COVID-19 Vaccination and Testing Emergency Temporary Standard (“ETS”) requiring employers with 100 or more employees to ensure that their employees are either vaccinated by January 4, 2022, or submit to weekly testing.  According to OSHA, employees who are unvaccinated face a “grave danger” from COVID-19, including the more contagious Delta variant.  The ETS notes that COVID-19 is highly transmissible—particularly in workplaces where multiple people interact throughout the day often for extended periods of time—and exposure to COVID-19 can result in death or illness, with some individuals experiencing long-term health complications.  OSHA has determined that vaccination is the most effective way to protect these employees.
Continue Reading OSHA Publishes Vaccine Requirements for Employers with 100 or More Employees

On March 10, 2020, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) issued Guidance for employers to prevent occupational exposures to the coronavirus. In doing so, OSHA reminds employers that while no specific standard governs occupational exposure to the coronavirus, the Occupational Safety and Health Act’s General Duty Clause, 29 U.S.C. § 654 (a)(1), requires employers…

In a memo dated July 22, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) announced that it was revising its interpretation of the “retail facilities” exemption from its Process Safety Management (PSM) standard, as codified at 29 C.F.R. § 1910.119(a)(2)(1). The PSM standard requires employers to manage hazards associated with processes involving highly hazardous chemicals.…

Most everyone knows that the First Amendment restricts the government’s ability to limit commercial speech. Similarly, most everyone would probably think the First Amendment also restricts the government’s ability to compel commercial speech. But are there times when the government may compel commercial speech? Indeed it can in some circumstances, and the D.C. Circuit recently expanded those circumstances in American Meat Institute v. U.S. Department of Agriculture (AMI). AMI involved a trade association’s challenge to regulations requiring meat producers to include country-of-origin labels on their products. This decision is important to almost any company that is, or could be, subject to a regulatory mandate to disclose what the court calls “purely factual and uncontroversial information.”

Rehearing en banc a case decided in the government’s favor by a three-judge panel, the D.C. Circuit in AMI upheld the regulations, applying the test from the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel. Zauderer upheld, against a First Amendment challenge, a state’s disciplinary action against an attorney whose advertisements had the potential to deceive consumers by failing to comply with state regulations mandating certain cost disclosures to prospective clients. Although the regulations concerning meat origins in AMI had nothing to do with countering consumer deception, the D.C. Circuit nonetheless applied Zauderer and thus extended its application beyond protection against consumer deception to the advancement of consumer edification.Continue Reading To Label Or Not To Label? Companies May Have No Choice