FMSHRC ALJ decision Docket KENT 90-59-D Decided October 21, 1992 Settled Judge George A. Koutras

Leeco, Inc.

Leeco, Inc. (FMSHRC KENT 90-59-D): Settlement approved and discrimination case dismissed

What's the rule today?

This ALJ decision was superseded by the Commission's decision in the same case. Ezel starts from the controlling decision and answers your situation under current law, with citations.

Currency note: this decision dates from 1992
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.
ALJ decision, later reviewed by the Commission
This decision was issued by an FMSHRC Administrative Law Judge, but it was not the final word in the case: the Commission directed review, and the Commission's decision is the one citable as precedent.
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

Ricky Hays brought a discrimination proceeding against Leeco, Inc. The case returned to the ALJ after a federal appellate court remanded it and the Commission directed further proceedings. Hays and Leeco reported that they had reached a full and final confidential settlement, including attorney fees. Judge George A. Koutras found the settlement reasonable and in the public interest, approved it, and dismissed the matter.

Decision snapshot

  • Cited provisions: No specific Mine Act standard is identified in the official released text.
  • Outcome: The settlement was approved and the discrimination proceeding was dismissed.
  • Key point: The ALJ reviewed the confidential settlement agreement in camera and found the settlement reasonable and in the public interest.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

CCASE:
RICKY BAYS V. LEECO, INC.
DDATE:
19921021
TTEXT:


Page 2

~1732

      FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

             OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES
                    2 SKYLINE, 10th FLOOR
                     5203 LEESBURG PIKE
                FALLS CHURCH, VIRGINIA 22041

RICKY HAYS, : DISCRIMINATION PROCEEDING
Complainant :
v. : Docket No. KENT 90-59-D
: MSHA Case No. BARB CD 89-32
LEECO, INC., :
Respondent : No. 62 Mine

                DECISION APPROVING SETTLEMENT
                             and
                     ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Before: Judge Koutras

                       Statement of the Case

 This case is before the Commission on remand from the United

States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit,
Leeco, Inc. v. Ricky Hays & FMSHRC, 965 F.2d 1081 (1992). On
August 3, 1992, after the judgment of the Court remanding the
case, counsel for complainant Ricky Hays filed a motion with the
Commission requesting that the proceeding on remand be dismissed
on the basis that \"Hays and Leeco have entered into a settlement
agreement of this matter\". Thereafter, on September 22, 1992,
the Commission remanded the matter to me with instructions to
consider the motion to dismiss and, if necessary, for further
proceedings consistent with the Court's opinion.

 In his motion to dismiss, complainant's counsel stated that

the parties have reached a full and final settlement of this
litigation, including the matter of attorneys fees, and that
their dispute has been fully resolved without the need for
further court proceedings. Counsel further stated that the
settlement agreement is confidential, and that since it fully
resolves the matter, there is no need for the Commission to
reconsider the matter. However, given the Commission's comments
on remand that "Oversight of proposed settlements is an important
aspect of the Commission's adjudicative responsibilities under
the Mine Act and is, in general, committed to the Commission's
sound discretion", and notwithstanding the confidentiality of the
settlement, I issued an order directing the parties to file a
copy of their settlement agreement with me for my in camera
review and appropriate disposition.


Page 3

~1733
Discussion

 The parties have complied with my Order and a copy of their

settlement agreement has been filed for my in camera review. The
complainant's counsel has confirmed that the parties have fully
complied with the terms of the settlement agreement, and that
the complainant Ricky Hays and the respondent Leeco, Inc., jointly
request that I approve the settlement and dismiss this matter.

                       Conclusion

 After careful review and consideration of the motion and

supporting settlement agreement, I conclude and find that the
settlement disposition is reasonable and in the public interest.
Accordingly, the settlement disposition is APPROVED, and the
motion to dismiss IS GRANTED.
ORDER

 In view of the mutually agreeable settlement disposition of

this case, this matter IS DISMISSED.

                            George A. Koutras
                            Administrative Law Judge

Distribution:

Tony Oppegard, Esq., Appalachian Research & Defense Fund of
Kentucky, Inc., 630 Maxwelton Court, Lexington, KY 40508
(Certified Mail)

Timothy Joe Walker, Esq., Reece, Lang & Breeding, 400 South
Main Street, P.O. Drawer 5087, London, KY 40745-5087
(Certified Mail)

/ml

Find out what applies today

This decision wasn't the final word: the Commission reviewed the case, and its decision is the one that controls. Ezel starts from the controlling decision and answers your specific situation under current law, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the authority it relies on.