Secretary of Labor on behalf of Robert Vaughn v. Sumco, Inc. and R.E. Summers
Secretary of Labor on behalf of Robert Vaughn v. Sumco, Inc. and R.E. Summers (FMSHRC KENT 89-28-D): Back wages and penalty ordered
Apply this to your situation
This order from 1989 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.
Plain-English summary
The Secretary brought this discrimination proceeding on behalf of Robert Vaughn, who was employed by Sumco, Inc. and R.E. Summers. After an earlier decision on the merits, the parties did not stipulate to the amount owed, so the Secretary submitted a calculation and the respondents did not reply. Judge James A. Broderick ordered $4,470.93 in back wages, including interest through July 15, 1989, plus $1.38 per day after that date until payment. He also ordered a $100 civil penalty and stated that the supplemental order, together with the June 2, 1989 decision, was the final decision and order in the proceeding.
Decision snapshot
- Governing provisions: 30 U.S.C. § 815(c) and 30 U.S.C. § 820(i)
- Outcome: Back wages, continuing interest, and a $100 civil penalty were ordered as supplemental relief.
- Key point: When the parties cannot agree on monetary relief after a discrimination finding, the judge may set the amount from the Secretary's unopposed calculation.
Full text (FMSHRC public release)
Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission (F.M.S.H.R.C.)
Office of Administrative Law Judges
SECRETARY OF LABOR, DISCRIMINATION PROCEEDING
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH Docket No. KENT 89-28-D
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA),
ON BEHALF OF ROBERT VAUGHN,
COMPLAINANT
v.
SUMCO, INC. AND R.E. SUMMERS,
RESPONDENTS
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
Appearances: Mary K. Spencer, Esq., Office of the Solicitor,
U.S. Department of Labor, Arlington, Virginia,
on behalf of Complainant; Rodney E. Buttermore,
Jr., Esq., Forester, Buttermore, Turner & Lawson,
Harlan, Kentucky, on behalf of Respondents.
Before: Judge Broderick
On June 2, 1989, I issued a Decision on the merits in the
above proceeding. I directed the parties to attempt to stipulate
as to the monetary amount due complainant Vaughn under the
decision. Should they fail to stipulate, I directed the Secretary
to submit a statement of the amount claimed due. Respondents were
given ten days to respond to the statement.
On July 7, the Secretary filed a statement of the amount she
contends is due under the decision with interest to July 15,
1989. Respondents did not reply to the statement.
Considering the entire record and the parties contentions,
Respondents are ORDERED:
1. To pay to Complainant Vaughn within 30 days of the date
of this order the sum of $4470.93, representing back wages from
June 30, 1988 to December 4, 1988, which amount includes interest
to July 15, 1989.
2. To pay interest at the rate of 1.38 per day after July
15, 1989, until the total amount due is paid.
3. To pay to the Secretary, within 30 days of the date of
this order, a civil penalty in the amount of $100.
4. This order supplements the decision issued June 2, 1989, and
with that decision represents my final decision and order in this
proceeding.
James A. Broderick
Administrative Law Judge
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read what one judge decided for one employer in 1989, 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.