Ezel / Agency Decisions / kent-87-212-d-alj-2
FMSHRC ALJ decision Docket KENT 87-212-D Decided May 17, 1988 Procedural Judge Gary Melick

Charolais Corporation, E. R. Mining, Inc., D.B.A. as E. R. Trucking Co.

Charolais Corporation, E. R. Mining, Inc., D.B.A. as E. R. Trucking Co. (FMSHRC KENT 87-212-D): Party dismissed from discrimination case

Apply this to your situation

This order from 1988 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 1988
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, 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 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

Charles H. Sisk asked to amend his discrimination complaint by removing Charolais Corporation as a party respondent. No party objected to the request. Judge Gary Melick granted permission to amend the complaint under 29 C.F.R. § 2700.11 and dismissed Charolais Corporation from the case. The release does not resolve the claims against the remaining respondent.

Decision snapshot

  • Governing rule: 29 C.F.R. § 2700.11
  • Outcome: Charolais Corporation was dismissed as a party respondent after the complainant amended his complaint.
  • Key point: An unopposed request to remove a party from a discrimination complaint may be granted under the Commission's procedural rule.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

CCASE:
CHARLES SISK V. CHAROLAIS, E.R. MINING,
E.R. TRUCKING
DDATE:
19880517
TTEXT:

Page 2

~674
FMSHRC-FCV
MAY 17, 1988

CHARLES H. SISK, DISCRIMINATION PROCEEDING
Complainant
v. Docket No. KENT 87-212-D

CHAROLAIS CORPORATION,
E. R. MINING, INC., MADI CD 87-3
D.B.A. as E. R. TRUCKING CO.
Respondent No. 1 Mine

                       ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Before: Judge Melick

 Complainant requests approval to amend his Complaint by dismissing

Charolais Corporation as a party Respondent in the captioned case. No
objection has been filed to the request and under the circumstances
permission to amend is granted. 29 C.F.R. $ 2700.11. Charolais
Corporation is therefore dismissed as a party Respondent.

                             Gary Melick
                             Administrative Law Judge

Distribution:

Daniel N. Thomas, Esq., Thomas & Ison, P.S.C., 1302 South Main Street,
P.0. Box 673, Hopkinsville, KY 42240 (Certified Mail)

Pam Corbin, Esq., Little & Corbin, 161 Sugg Street, Madisonville, KY
42431 (Certified Mail)

D. Patton Pelfrey, Esq., Brown, Todd & Heyburn, 1600 Citizens Plaza,
Louisville, KY 40202 (Certified Mail)

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read what one judge decided for one employer in 1988, 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.