Ezel / Agency Decisions / CENT 91-200-DM

Richard Sierra v. Phelps Dodge Corporation (ALJ decision, February 24, 1992)

Richard Sierra v. Phelps Dodge Corporation (FMSHRC CENT 91-200-DM): Discrimination complaint dismissed after withdrawal

Decision type
ALJ decision
Docket
CENT 91-200-DM
Decided
February 24, 1992
Presiding judge
John J. Morris
Outcome
Procedural
Precedential status
Final order, not precedent
Checked against source
2026-08-15
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 1992 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 1992
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 an 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.
Transcribed from a scanned original: FMSHRC released this decision as an image-only file. The full text below is a machine transcription, proofread against the scan. Check the official release before quoting exact language.
Read the official release (fmshrc.gov)

Plain-English summary

Richard Sierra filed a discrimination complaint against Phelps Dodge Corporation in a proceeding involving the Tyrone Branch. On the day before the scheduled hearing, Sierra said he would withdraw the complaint unless he received more time to obtain an attorney. After the judge declined to grant more time, Sierra withdrew the complaint orally for financial reasons. Judge John J. Morris dismissed the case under the Commission rule allowing withdrawal of a pleading with approval.

Decision snapshot

  • Governing provision: 29 C.F.R. § 2700.11
  • Outcome: The discrimination proceeding was dismissed after the complainant withdrew the complaint.
  • Key point: The judge approved the complainant's withdrawal after the request for more time to obtain counsel was denied.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

CCASE:
RICHARD SIERRA v. PHELPS DODGE
DDATE:
19920224
TTEXT:

Page 2

~395
Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission Office of Administrative Law Judges
The Federal Building
Room 280, 1244 Speer Boulevard
Denver, CO 80204

RICHARD SIERRA,
DISCRIMINATION PROCEEDING
COMPLAINANT
v. Docket No. CENT 91-200-DM
SC MD 91-05
PHELPS DODGE CORPORATION,
RESPONDENT
Tyrone Branch

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Before: Judge Morris

On February 18, 1992, the day before a scheduled hearing in El Paso, Texas, Complainant advised the Judge that he intended to withdraw his complaint unless he could have more time to secure the services of an attorney.

The Judge declined to grant more time and Mr. Sierra orally withdrew his complaint due to "financial reasons."

Commission Rule 11, 29 C.F.R. 2700.11 permits a party to withdraw a pleading at any stage of a proceeding with approval of the Commission or the Judge.

In view of Complainant's motion, Counsel for Respondent was advised and the hearing and related arrangements were canceled.

For the foregoing reasons, this case is DISMISSED.

John J. Morris
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