Ezel / Agency Decisions / YORK 85-11-DM

James G. Eades v. Arundel Sand & Gravel Co. (ALJ decision, May 15, 1986)

James G. Eades v. Arundel Sand & Gravel Co. (FMSHRC YORK 85-11-DM): Discrimination complaint withdrawn and dismissed

Decision type
ALJ decision
Docket
YORK 85-11-DM
Decided
May 15, 1986
Presiding judge
Gary Melick
Outcome
Procedural
Precedential status
Final order, not precedent
Checked against source
2026-08-27
Cited standards
29 C.F.R. § 2700.11
Official source
Read the official release (fmshrc.gov)
PDF
View Official PDF

Apply this to your situation

This order from 1986 bound only the parties to this case; it isn't precedent. Ask about your situation and see what the current MSHA standards and Commission precedent say, with citations.

Currency note: this decision dates from 1986
The MSHA standards may have been amended, penalty amounts have been adjusted, and later Commission or court decisions may have changed the analysis since then. Treat this page as historical context, not current compliance advice. Verify the current standard before relying on any specific rule, threshold, or penalty mentioned here.
Final order, not Commission precedent
This decision by a FMSHRC Administrative Law Judge became the final decision of the Commission 40 days after issuance because the Commission did not direct review (30 U.S.C. § 823(d)(1)). It binds the parties but is not binding on the Commission in other cases. The full text below is from the official FMSHRC release.
About this page: The plain-English summary and decision snapshot below were written by Ezel based on the official FMSHRC release. The full text is the agency's own release.
Read the official release (fmshrc.gov)

Plain-English summary

James G. Eades filed a discrimination complaint against Arundel Sand & Gravel Co. The complaint was before Judge Gary Melick in a proceeding under the Mine Act's discrimination provisions. At a May 6, 1986 hearing, Eades asked to withdraw the complaint. The judge granted the request and confirmed dismissal of the proceeding under Commission Rule 11.

Decision snapshot

  • Governing provision: 29 C.F.R. § 2700.11
  • Outcome: The complainant's request to withdraw was granted and the discrimination complaint was dismissed.
  • Key point: A complainant may withdraw a discrimination complaint with the judge's approval under Commission Rule 11.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

CCASE:
JAMES EADES V. ARUNDEL SAND & GRAVEL
DDATE:
19860515
TTEXT:

Page 2

~841

Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission Office of Administrative Law Judges

JAMES G. EADES,
DISCRIMINATION PROCEEDING
COMPLAINANT
Docket No. YORK 85-11-DM
v. MSHA Case No. MD 85-30

ARUNDEL SAND & GRAVEL CO.,
RESPONDENT

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Appearances: James G. Eades, Aberdeen, Maryland, Pro se;
Randal J. Schultz, Arundel Sand & Gravel Co., Baltimore, Maryland, for Respondent.

Before: Judge Melick

At hearings on May 6, 1986, the Complainant requested to withdraw his Complaint herein. Under the circumstances of this case the request was granted and is now confirmed. Commission Rule 11, 29 C.F.R. 2700.11.

Gary Melick
Administrative Law Judge

What applies to your situation today?

This order bound one employer. Ezel checks the current MSHA standards and Commission precedent against your facts, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace