Frank McCoart v. Elm Coal Company (ALJ decision, August 26, 1986)

Plain-English summary

Frank McCoart alleged that Elm Coal Company discriminated against him for exercising rights under the Mine Act. After a hearing began, he obtained a continuance to seek counsel, and the parties proposed a settlement. Elm Coal agreed to remove reprimands, warnings, and disciplinary actions from his personnel file and had paid him $3,000 to settle his claims, including backpay and reinstatement. Judge Roy J. Maurer found the agreement a reasonable resolution, approved it, and ordered Elm Coal to comply fully. He directed that the complaint be dismissed with prejudice upon full compliance, without deciding the discrimination claim on its merits.

Decision snapshot

• Governing provision: 30 U.S.C. § 815(c) (Mine Act discrimination).
• Outcome: Settlement approved; $3,000 paid, personnel-file relief ordered, and dismissal conditioned on full compliance.
• Key point: The judge approved the agreed relief and directed Elm Coal to carry it out before the case was dismissed.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

• -
  FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION
  OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES
  2 SKYLINE, 10th FLOOR
  5203 LEESBURG PIKE
  FALLS CHURCH, VIRGINIA 22041 AUG 261986

FRANK McCOART,
: DISCRIMINATION PROCEEDING
Complainant :
: Docket No. KENT 86-63-D
v. : CD 86-05
:
ELM COAL COMPANY,
: No. 2 UG Mine
Respondent
:

DECISION APPROVING SETTLEMENT
Appearances: Frank McCoart, Van Lear, Kentucky, pro se:
Michael J. Schmitt, Esq., Wells, Porter, Schmitt & Walker, Paintsville, Kentucky, for Respondent.
Before: Judge Maurer
Statement of the Case
This is a discrimination proceeding initiated by the complainant against the respondent pursuant to section 105(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, charging the respondent with unlawful discrimination against Mr. McCoart for exercising certain rights afforded him under the Act. A hearing in this matter was convened in Prestonsburg, Kentucky, on August 5, 1986. After com- mencing his case-in-chief, Mr. McCoart moved for a contin- uance so that he might obtain counsel to assist him in preparing and presenting his claim. I granted this motion over objection of respondent's counsel and the hearing was continued at that point.
Subsequently, the parties have jointly proposed a settlement by a written motion to approve settlement filed on August 8, 1986. That proposal contemplates a dismissal of the complainant's claim against the respondent with prejudice upon the following terms and conditions:
(1) The respondent shall and has purged the complainant's personnel file of all repri- mands, warnings and disciplinary actions so that such records will not reflect adversely upon the complainant and inhibit his ability to obtain future employment as a coal miner.

(2) The respondent has agreed to pay and has paid to the complainant the sum of $3,000.00 in complete and total settlement of all of com- plainant's claims for monetary relief (backpay), for reinstatement and for all claims whatsoever.
Conclusion
After careful review and consideration of the settlement terms and conditions proposed by the parties in this pro- ceeding, I conclude and find that it reflects a reasonable resolution of the complaint. Further, since it seems clear to me that all the parties, including Mr. McCoart personally, are in accord with the agreed upon disposition of the com- plaint, I see no reason why it should not be approved.
ORDER
The proposed settlement is APPROVED. Respondent IS ORDERED AND DIRECTED to fully comply with the terms of the agreement. Upon full and complete compliance with the terms of the agreement, this matter-is DISMISSED.

Roy J. Maurer
Administrative Law Judge

Distribution:
Frank McCoart, General Delivery, Van Lear, KY 41265 (Certified Mail) Michael J. Schmitt, Esq., Wells, Porter, Schmitt & Walker, P. 0. Box 1179, Paintsville, KY 41240 (Certified Mail)

1252