Ezel / Agency Decisions / kent-89-79-d-alj
FMSHRC ALJ decision Docket KENT 89-79-D Decided March 15, 1989 Procedural Judge Avram Weisberger Transcribed from scan

Peabody Coal Company

Peabody Coal Company (FMSHRC KENT 89-79-D): Discrimination complaint withdrawn

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.

Currency note: this decision dates from 1989
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
The complainant requested withdrawal of the discrimination complaint, and the judge dismissed it. It 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.
Transcribed from a scanned original: FMSHRC released this decision as an image-only file. The full text below is a machine transcription, proofread against the scan. Check the official release before quoting exact language.
Read the official release (fmshrc.gov)

Plain-English summary

Mike E. Ammerman filed a discrimination complaint against Peabody Coal Company concerning Camp No. 2 Mine. He later sent a statement asking to withdraw the complaint so the matter could be settled. Judge Avram Weisberger dismissed the complaint based on that request.

Decision snapshot

  • Cited standard(s): The order does not identify specific Mine Act standards.
  • Outcome: The discrimination complaint was dismissed at the complainant's request.
  • Key point: A complainant's request to withdraw the case supported dismissal.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

CCASE:
MIKE AMMERMAN V. PEABODY COAL
DDATE:
19890315
TTEXT:

Page 2

~360
Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission (F.M.S.H.R.C.)
Office of Administrative Law Judges

MIKE E. AMMERMAN, DISCRIMINATION PROCEEDING
COMPLAINANT
Docket No. KENT 89-79-D
v.
MADI CD 88-19
PEABODY COAL COMPANY,
RESPONDENT Camp No. 2 Mine

                  ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Before: Judge Weisberger

 On March 6, 1989, Complainant filed a statement indicating

as follows: "I am writing this letter to inform you I wish to
withdraw the 105c complaint. (Docket number Kent 89-79-D) that I
filed against Peabody Coal Co. in order that this matter may be
settled."

 Accordingly, based on the Complainant's request, the

Complaint is DISMISSED.

                          Avram Weisberger
                          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.