Ezel / Agency Decisions / kent-87-138-d-alj
FMSHRC ALJ decision Docket KENT 87-138-D Decided August 14, 1987 Settled Judge George A. Koutras

Chaney Creek Coal Corporation

Chaney Creek Coal Corporation (FMSHRC KENT 87-138-D): Discrimination complaint settled for $7,000

Apply this to your situation

This order from 1987 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 1987
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 ALJ decision approving a settlement, not Commission precedent
This decision became final under the 40-day rule in 30 U.S.C. § 823(d)(1) because no later Commission review appears in the official index. It binds the parties but is not Commission precedent. 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

Odell Maggard alleged that Chaney Creek Coal Corporation forced him to quit after harassment following his reinstatement in an earlier discrimination matter. The parties settled before the scheduled hearing. Maggard agreed to withdraw the complaint and waive claims to reinstatement and attorney fees, while Chaney Creek agreed to pay him $7,000 in seven monthly installments. Judge George A. Koutras approved the settlement and ordered the respondent to comply, with dismissal to follow full performance.

Decision snapshot

  • Cited authority: 30 U.S.C. § 815(c)
  • Outcome: The settlement was approved, requiring $7,000 in installment payments, waiver of reinstatement and attorney-fee claims, and dismissal after full compliance.
  • Key point: The judge approved the parties' agreed resolution of the discrimination complaint before the scheduled hearing.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

CCASE:
ODELL MAGGARD V. CHANEY CREEK
DDATE:
19870814
TTEXT:

Page 2

~1464

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

ODELL MAGGARD, DISCRIMINATION PROCEEDING
COMPLAINANT
Docket No. KENT 87-138-D
v. MSHA Case No. BARB CD 86-72

CHANEY CREEK COAL CORPORATION, Dollar Branch Mine
RESPONDENT

                    DECISION APPROVING SETTLEMENT

Before: Judge Koutras

                           Statement of the Case

 This proceeding concerns a complaint of discrimination filed

by the complainant against the respondent pursuant to section
105(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977. The
complainant alleged that after his reinstatement by the
respondent as a result of a prior discrimination complaint, he
was subsequently forced to quit his job because of harrassment by
the respondent. A hearing on the merits of his complaint was
scheduled for London, Kentucky, during September 1Ä3, 1987.
However, the parties have now filed a joint motion to dismiss the
complaint on the ground that they have settled their dispute in
accordance with a settlement agreement which they have filed.

                                 Discussion

 Pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement, Mr.

Maggard agrees to withdraw his complaint and to waive his claim
to reinstatement and attorney fees in this matter. In return, the
respondent agrees to pay Mr. Maggard the sum of $7,000 in
damages. Said damages are to be paid in separate installments of
$1,000 each. The first installment shall be paid on or before
July 22, 1987; and the remaining installments shall be paid on or
before the 22nd of each succeeding month (with the final
installment due on January 22, 1988).

Page 3

~1465
Conclusion

 After careful review and consideration of the settlement

terms and conditions executed by the parties in this proceeding,
I conclude and find that it reflects a reasonable resolution of
the complaint. Since it seems clear to me that the parties are in
accord with the agreed-upon disposition of the complaint, I see
no reason why it should not be approved.

                             ORDER

 The proposed settlement IS APPROVED. Respondent IS ORDERED

AND DIRECTED to fully comply forthwith with the terms of the
agreement. Upon full and complete compliance with the terms of
the agreement, this matter is dismissed.

                         George A. Koutras
                         Administrative Law Judge

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read what one judge decided for one employer in 1987, and it binds only those parties. Ezel checks the current MSHA standards and Commission precedent and answers your specific situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the authority it relies on.