What happened in this inspection
Cal/OSHA opened a planned inspection of K V Sportswear Inc. at 9860 Rush St., South El Monte (Los Angeles County) on Mar 3, 2000. It was a complete inspection of the worksite focused on safety hazards. 20 employees were recorded at the site. Inspectors issued 17 citations (3 serious) and proposed $15,450 in penalties; the current total is $895. The case closed on Oct 31, 2000.
Citations
Each citation names the rule, its classification and the penalty as proposed and as it stands now.
Issued Apr 11, 2000. Proposed $300, current $225. 20 workers exposed. Abatement due May 12, 2000, completed. Read the rule.
Issued Apr 11, 2000. Proposed $150, current $0. 20 workers exposed. Abatement due May 12, 2000, completed. Read the rule.
Issued Apr 11, 2000. Proposed $150, current $0. 2 instances. 20 workers exposed. Abatement due May 12, 2000, completed. Read the rule.
Issued Apr 11, 2000. Proposed $150, current $0. 4 instances. 20 workers exposed. Abatement due May 12, 2000, completed. Read the rule.
Issued Apr 11, 2000. Proposed $150, current $110. 2 instances. 20 workers exposed. Abatement due May 12, 2000, completed. Read the rule.
Issued Apr 11, 2000. Proposed $150, current $110. 3 instances. 20 workers exposed. Abatement due May 12, 2000, completed. Read the rule.
Issued Apr 11, 2000. Proposed $150, current $0. 2 instances. 20 workers exposed. Abatement due May 12, 2000, completed. Read the rule.
Issued Apr 11, 2000. Proposed $150, current $0. 20 workers exposed. Abatement due May 12, 2000, completed. Read the rule.
Issued Apr 11, 2000. Proposed $150, current $0. 2 instances. 20 workers exposed. Abatement due May 12, 2000, completed. Read the rule.
Issued Apr 11, 2000. Proposed $150, current $0. 20 workers exposed. Abatement due May 12, 2000, completed. Read the rule.
Issued Apr 11, 2000. Proposed $150, current $0. 2 instances. 20 workers exposed. Abatement due May 12, 2000, completed. Read the rule.
Issued Apr 11, 2000. Proposed $150, current $0. 20 workers exposed. Abatement due May 12, 2000, completed. Read the rule.
Issued Apr 11, 2000. Proposed $2,700, current $225. 4 instances. 20 workers exposed. Abatement due May 12, 2000, completed. Read the rule.
Issued Apr 11, 2000. Proposed $2,700, current $0. 20 workers exposed. Abatement due May 12, 2000, completed. Read the rule.
Issued Apr 11, 2000. Proposed $2,700, current $225. 2 instances. 20 workers exposed. Abatement due May 12, 2000, completed. Read the rule.
Issued Apr 11, 2000. Proposed $2,700, current $0. 3 instances. 20 workers exposed. Abatement due May 12, 2000, completed. Read the rule.
Issued Apr 11, 2000. Proposed $2,700, current $0. 20 workers exposed. Abatement due May 12, 2000, completed. Read the rule.
Your rights
If you worked at this site, the inspection file is a public record once the case closes; request it from the Cal/OSHA district office with activity number 120261706. A worker who reported the hazard, the injury or the inspection and was then fired, demoted or cut has a retaliation claim under Labor Code 6310, one year to file with the Labor Commissioner and longer to sue. Injuries themselves go through workers' compensation. Free, confidential review: (800) 371-3088.
Source: U.S. Department of Labor OSHA enforcement data, inspection 120261706, checked Nov 1, 2026. How to read a record. Back to the safety tracker.
About this data: Records come from the U.S. Department of Labor's OSHA enforcement datasets (inspection, violation, accident and accident injury tables), which carry Cal/OSHA's state-plan inspections alongside federal ones. We load every inspection of a California worksite opened since January 1, 2000 and refresh it weekly. Employer names, addresses and industry codes are as the inspecting office recorded them; similar names are grouped where they clearly refer to the same employer. A citation can be reduced, vacated or withdrawn on appeal, and an inspection can stay open for months, so a record can change. Penalties shown as "current" reflect the latest status in the federal file. This page is public information about the employer's regulatory record, not legal advice and not a statement that any person was harmed or any law broken beyond what the record states.