Steve Lewis v. Leeco Corporation (ALJ decision, December 19, 1984)

Plain-English summary

Steve Lewis brought a mine safety discrimination case against Leeco Corporation. Leeco sought dismissal on the ground that the complaint did not state a valid claim, and Lewis did not oppose the motion. Lewis also failed to meet prehearing requirements or appear at a hearing where the judge planned to examine whether a valid claim existed. Judge Michael A. Lasher, Jr. granted the motion at the hearing and affirmed that dismissal in this written order. The order does not decide whether the alleged discrimination occurred.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standard(s): Commission procedural rule 29 C.F.R. § 2700.10 on opposing motions.
• Outcome: The complaint was dismissed after Lewis failed to respond and failed to appear; no penalty was assessed.
• Key point: Failure to pursue a complaint or attend a duly noticed hearing can lead to dismissal without a merits ruling.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

CCASE:
STEVE LEWIS V. LEECO
DDATE:
19841219
TTEXT:

~2770

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

STEVE LEWIS,
DISCRIMINATION PROCEEDING
COMPLAINANT
v. Docket No. KENT 83-279-D

LEECO CORPORATION,
BARB CD 83-23
RESPONDENT
No. 29 Mine

DECISION AND ORDER AFFIRMING DISMISSAL

Before: Judge Lasher

The Complainant, Steve Lewis, failed to respond to Respondent's "Renewed Motion for Termination of Proceedings and Dismissal" filed on October 9, 1984, which sought dismissal for failure of the complaint to state a claim or cause of action. Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. 2700.10 Complainant had the right to file an opposition to such motion within 10 days. Complainant did not appear at the hearing on November 27, 1984, one of the purposes of which was to determine if indeed a valid cause of action did exist under the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977. Accordingly, upon Respondent's renewal of its motion on the record at the commencement of the hearing, such motion was granted.

It also appears that Complainant has abandoned the prosecution of his claim, in view of his having failed to respond to (1) the prehearing requirements contained in the Notice of Hearing herein, (2) a letter from Respondent's counsel, and (3) Respondent's motion to dismiss. Inasmuch as Complainant further failed to appear at the hearing without notice or explanation even though duly served with written notice thereof, this proceeding was dismissed from the bench on November 27, 1984, and that ruling is hereby AFFIRMED.

Michael A. Lasher, Jr.
Administrative Law Judge