Ezel / Agency Decisions / kent-91-901-d-alj
FMSHRC ALJ decision Docket KENT 91-901-D Decided February 25, 1992 Settled Judge George A. Koutras Transcribed from scan

Cumberland Valley Contractors

Cumberland Valley Contractors (FMSHRC KENT 91-901-D): Discrimination settlement approved

Apply this to your situation

This order from 1992 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 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.
Final order, not Commission precedent
This decision by an FMSHRC Administrative Law Judge became the final decision of the Commission 40 days after issuance because the Commission did not direct review (30 U.S.C. § 823(d)(1)). It binds the parties but is not binding on the Commission in other cases. 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

The Secretary of Labor brought a discrimination complaint for three former miners who alleged that Cumberland Valley Contractors discharged them after they complained about unsafe practices involving the roof control plan. The company denied discriminating against them. The parties and the three complainants agreed to a settlement before the scheduled hearing. Judge George A. Koutras found the settlement fair, reasonable, and in the public interest, approved it, and ordered the parties to comply before the matter was dismissed with prejudice.

Decision snapshot

  • Governing provisions: 30 U.S.C. § 815(c)(2); 29 C.F.R. § 2700.30
  • Outcome: The proposed discrimination settlement was approved, with dismissal with prejudice upon compliance.
  • Key point: The judge approved the parties' agreed resolution after finding that its terms were fair, proper, and in the public interest.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

CCASE:
SOL (MSHA) v. CUMBERLAND VALLEY CONTRACTORS
DDATE:
19920225
TTEXT:

Page 2

~401
Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission
Office of Administrative Law Judges
2 Skyline, 10th Floor
5203 Leesburg Pike
Falls Church, Virginia 22041

SECRETARY OF LABOR, DISCRIMINATION PROCEEDING
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA), Docket No. KENT 91-901-D
ON BEHALF OF CLAYTON LAWSON,
WENDELL SLUSHER, AND BILLY CV No. 5 Mine
RAY HENRY,
COMPLAINANTS
v.

CUMBERLAND VALLEY CONTRACTORS,
RESPONDENT

                     DECISION APPROVING SETTLEMENT

Before: Judge Koutras

                         Statement of the Case

 This proceeding concerns a complaint of alleged

discrimimination filed by the Secretary of Labor on May 15, 1991,
against the respondent pursuant to section 105(c)(2) of the
Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C. 815(c)(2).
The complaint was filed on behalf of three former miner employees
of the respondent (Clayton Lawson, Wendell Slusher, and Billy Ray
Henry), and it alleges that on or about January 22, 1990, the
three named complainants "were discriminated against and
discharged by the respondent because they had prior to this date,
complained about unsafe practices which violated provisions of
the roof control plan". The respondent filed an answer admitting
that the miners were discharged, but denying that it
discriminated against them.

 The case was scheduled for hearing in Middlesboro, Kentucky

on January 22, 1992. However, the hearing was continued after the
parties advised me that they agreed to settle the matter. They
have now filed their joint settlement proposal pursuant to
Commission Rule 30, 29 C.F.R. 2700.30, seeking approval of the
proposed settlement.

                              Discussion

 The parties and the three miner complainants have now agreed

to the resolution of all matters set forth in the complaint and
have settled the matter. The terms of the settlement agreement
are set forth in an agreement executed by counsel for the
Secretary, counsel for the respondent, and the three miner

Page 3

~402
complainants. All of the parties, including the miner
complainants, have signed the agreement and they all agree that
the settlement terms are fair and proper.

                              Conclusion

 After careful review and consideration of the settlement

terms and conditions I find that they reflect a reasonable
resolution of the complaint and that the proposed settlement is
in the public interest. Since it is apparent that all parties are
in accord with the agreement for the settlement disposition of
the complaint, I see no reason why it should not be approved.

                                 ORDER

 The proposed settlement IS APPROVED. The parties ARE ORDERED

AND DIRECTED to forthwith comply with all the terms of the
agreement. Upon compliance, this matter is dismissed with
prejudice.

                                George A. Koutras
                                Administrative Law Judge

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read what one judge decided for one employer in 1992, 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.