William R. Jewett v. Missouri Portland Cement Company (ALJ decision, June 25, 1981)

Plain-English summary

William R. Jewett filed discharge, discrimination, or interference complaints against Missouri Portland Cement Company. The parties reached a settlement under which the company agreed to pay him $3,873 and to address procedural matters in a separate age discrimination complaint. Jewett signed a release covering the claims in these mine safety proceedings, but he did not file the requested letter asking for dismissal. Judge Richard C. Steffey concluded that the signed release covered all claims in the proceedings and dismissed both complaints.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standard: No mine safety standard is cited; these are discrimination complaints.
• Outcome: Both complaints dismissed after the claimant signed a release in a $3,873 settlement.
• Key point: The judge dismissed the complaints based on the signed release although the claimant had not separately requested dismissal.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES
2 SKYLINE, 10th FLOOR
JUN 25 1981
5203 LEESBURG PIKE
FALLS CHURCH, VIRGINIA 22041

WILLIAM R. JEWETT,
: Complaints of Discharge,
Complainant : Discrimination, or Interference
:
V. : Docket Nos. DENV 79-346-M and
: CENT 80-204-DM
MISSOURI PORTLAND CEMENT COMPANY, :
Respondent : Kansas City Mine and Plant

DECISION DISMISSING CONPLAINTS

Counsel for respondent filed on June 8, 1981, in the above-entitled pro- ceeding a copy of a release signed by complainant. The release states that complainant has released and forever discharged respondent from all suits, actions, causes of actions, damages, claims, or demands, in law or in equity, which complainant ever had, has, or hereafter might have, from the beginning of the world to the present time, with respect to any claims, including those involved in the complaints filed in this proceeding in Docket Nos. DENV 79- 346-M and CENT 80-204-DM.

Complainant's release of all claims made in this proceeding are based on a settlement agreement between him and respondent dated May 21, 1981. That settlement agreement shows that respondent agreed to pay complainant $3,873.00 and agreed to abide by certain procedural matters in connection with an age discrimination complaint filed by complainant under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq.

A hearing was scheduled to be held in this proceeding on November 14, 1979, but that hearing was indefinitely continued at complainant's request so that complainant could obtain an attorney to represent him at the hearing. After complainant had decided not to hire an attorney to represent him, the hearing was rescheduled to be held on October 15, 1980. The hearing was thereafter continued again at complainant's request because he stated that he was engaged in settlement negotiations with respondent. In the order granting the second continuance I specifically stated that complainant would be expected to file a request that his complaints be dismissed if he should reach a settlement with respondent.

On December 17, 1980, respondent's counsel submitted for my approval a draft of a proposed settlement agreement. In a letter dated December 18, 1980, I returned the draft of the settlement agreement after I had signed the draft to indicate that it would be a satisfactory method of discharging the complaints filed in this proceeding. About 5 months after I had returned the draft of the settlement agreement, I wrote a letter dated May 11, 1981, in which I requested that an executed copy of the proposed release be sent to me along with a statement by complainant that he wished to have his com- plaints in this proceeding dismissed on the basis of the settlement agreement.

1618

Complainant ignored the letter of May 11, 1981, but respondent's counsel immediately replied to my letter by submitting on May 18, 1981, a copy of the settlement agreement and a letter in which he stated that complainant had apparently not yet signed the settlement agreement or release. On June 8, 1981, counsel for respondent submitted a release signed by complainant on January 3, 1981.

Complainant has still not filed a letter requesting that his complaints in this proceeding be dismissed, but the release sent to me by respondent's counsel shows that complainant has released respondent from any claims which could possibly be raised in this proceeding. Therefore, I find that the facts hereinbefore discussed support a conclusion that the complaints filed in this proceeding should be dismissed.

WHEREFORE, for the reasons given above, it is ordered:

The complaints of discharge, discrimination, or interference filed in Docket Nos. DENV 79-346-M and CENT 80-204-DM are dismissed.

Richard C. Steffey
Administrative Law Judge
(Phone: 703-756-6225)

Distribution:

Mr. William R. Jewett, 4206 West 73rd Street, Prairie Village, Kansas 66208 (Certified Mail)

Lawrence E. Moncrief, Esq., Attorney for Missouri Portland Cement Company and H.K. Porter Company, Inc., Porter Building, Pittsburgh, PA 15219 (Certified Mail)

1619