Ezel / Agency Decisions / KENT 87-212-D

Charolais Corporation, E. R. Mining, Inc., D.B.A. as E. R. Trucking Co. (ALJ decision, May 17, 1988)

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

Decision type
ALJ decision
Docket
KENT 87-212-D
Decided
May 17, 1988
Presiding judge
Gary Melick
Outcome
Procedural
Precedential status
Interlocutory order, not final
Checked against source
2026-08-20
Cited standards
29 C.F.R. § 2700.11
Official source
Read the official release (fmshrc.gov)
PDF
View Official PDF

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.
Interlocutory ALJ order, not Commission precedent
This order dismisses one respondent while claims against the other respondent remain pending. It does not dispose of the proceeding or become a final decision under the 40-day rule in 30 U.S.C. § 823(d)(1). 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)

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