Ezel / Agency Decisions / KENT 84-157-D

Secretary of Labor on behalf of Teddy W. Bentley v. Beth-Elkhorn Corporation (ALJ decision, June 20, 1984)

Secretary of Labor on behalf of Teddy W. Bentley v. Beth-Elkhorn Corporation (FMSHRC KENT 84-157-D): Discrimination case settled and dismissed

Decision type
ALJ decision
Docket
KENT 84-157-D
Decided
June 20, 1984
Presiding judge
Paul Merlin
Outcome
Settled
Precedential status
Final order, not precedent
Checked against source
2026-10-20
Official source
Read the official release (fmshrc.gov)
PDF
View Official PDF

Apply this to your situation

This order from 1984 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 1984
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

The Secretary of Labor brought a discrimination complaint on behalf of Teddy W. Bentley against Beth-Elkhorn Corporation. After the parties reached a settlement, Bentley signed a statement authorizing the Secretary to withdraw the complaint. Judge Paul Merlin granted the withdrawal and dismissed the complaint. He separately approved a civil penalty settlement and ordered the operator to pay $100 within 30 days. The published order does not set out the other settlement terms or decide the discrimination allegation.

Decision snapshot

  • Cited standards: No numbered safety or discrimination provision is cited in this order.
  • Outcome: Discrimination complaint dismissed after settlement; $100 civil penalty settlement approved.
  • Key point: The order approves the parties' settlement and withdrawal without a merits ruling on the discrimination claim.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

CCASE:
SOL (MSHA) V. BETH-ELKHORN
DDATE:
19840620
TTEXT:
~1558

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

SECRETARY OF LABOR,
DISCRIMINATION PROCEEDING
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA),
Docket No. KENT 84-157-D
ON BEHALF OF
TEDDY W. BENTLEY,
No. 26 Mine
COMPLAINANT v.

BETH-ELKHORN CORPORATION,
RESPONDENT

ORDER OF DISMISSAL
DECISION APPROVING SETTLEMENT

This is a discrimination case brought by the Secretary on behalf of Teddy W. Bentley. On May 29, 1984, the Solicitor filed a motion to withdraw the complaint, explaining in detail a settlement agreement reached by the parties. Attached to the Solicitor's motion is a statement signed by Mr. Bentley that he voluntarily entered into the settlement and authorized the Solicitor to withdraw this complaint.

In addition, the Solicitor and the operator have moved for approval of a civil penalty settlement in the amount of $100.

I have reviewed the Solicitor's comprehensive motion to withdraw. It is Granted and the complaint is Dismissed.

I have also reviewed the settlement motion and in light of unusual circumstances set forth therein, determine it proper. The parties' request to delete the last sentence of the penultimate paragraph of the settlement motion is Granted. The settlement motion is Approved and the operator is Ordered to pay $100 within 30 days from the date of the decision.

Paul Merlin
Chief 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