Samuel Griffin v. Energy Producers Associates Inc. (ALJ decision, June 15, 1988)

Samuel Griffin v. Energy Producers Associates Inc. (FMSHRC KENT 88-84-0): Discrimination complaint dismissed

Decision type
ALJ decision
Docket
KENT 88-84-0
Decided
June 15, 1988
Presiding judge
Outcome
Procedural
Precedential status
Final order, not precedent
Checked against source
2026-08-20
Cited standards

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 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

Samuel Griffin filed a Mine Act discrimination complaint against Energy Producers Associates Inc. on February 16, 1988. Judge Paul Merlin later issued a show-cause order directing Griffin to provide information about the complaint or explain why he had not done so. The order was received, but Griffin did not respond. The judge dismissed the case.

Decision snapshot

  • Governing provision: 30 U.S.C. § 815(c)
  • Outcome: The discrimination proceeding was dismissed for failure to respond to the show-cause order.
  • Key point: A complaint may be dismissed when the complainant does not comply with an order requiring information or an explanation for noncompliance.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

CCASE:
SAMUEL GRIFFIN V. ENERGY PRODUCERS
DDATE:
19880615
TTEXT:


Page 2

~744

FMSHRC-WDC
June 15, 1988

SAMUEL GRIFFIN,
DISCRIMINATION PROCEEDING
Complainant
Docket No. KENT 88-84-0
v. BARB CD 87-37

ENERGY PRODUCERS ASSOCIATES
INC.,
Respondent

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Before: Judge Merlin

On February 16, 1988, you filed with this Commission a complaint of discrimination under section 105{c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977. On April 20, 1988 a show cause order was issued directing you to provide information regarding your complaint or show good reason for your failure to do so. The show cause was mailed to you certified mail, return receipt requested and the file contains the receipt card indicating you received the show cause order. You have however, not responded and complied with the show cause order.

Accordingly, this case is DISMISSED.

Paul Merlin
Chief Administrative Law Judge

Distribution:

Mr. Samuel Griffin, P. 0. Box 43, Pathfork, KY 40863 (Certified Mail)

Energy Producers Associates, Inc., 948 Compton Road, Cincinnati, OH 45231 (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