Fred Jones, Employed by Christian Energies, Incorporated
Fred Jones, Employed by Christian Energies, Incorporated (FMSHRC KENT 92-415): Settlement approved with $2,800 penalty
Apply this to your situation
This order from 1993 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
Fred Jones, employed by Christian Energies, faced a civil penalty proceeding involving Christian Energies No. 2 Mine. Judge Roy J. Maurer approved a settlement that reduced the proposed penalty from $11,400 to $2,800 because of Jones's limited financial resources. The penalty was payable in 14 equal monthly installments of $200, beginning within 30 days of the order.
Decision snapshot
- Cited standard(s): The order does not identify a specific mine-safety standard. It cites Mine Act sections 110(c) and 110(i).
- Outcome: The settlement was approved and a $2,800 penalty was ordered in monthly installments.
- Key point: A respondent's limited financial resources may support a substantial reduction in a negotiated penalty.
Full text (FMSHRC public release)
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, : CIVIL PENALTY PROCEEDING
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH :
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA), : Docket No. KENT 92-415
Petitioner : A. C. No. 15-16448-03562 A
v. :
: Christian Energies No. 2
FRED JONES, EMP. BY CHRISTIAN :
ENERGIES, INC., :
Respondent :
DECISION APPROVING SETTLEMENT
Appearances: J. Philip Smith, Esq., Office of the Solicitor,
U. S. Department of Labor, Arlington, Virginia,
for the Secretary;
Mr. Fred Jones, Williamsburg, Kentucky, pro se.
Before: Judge Maurer
This case is before me upon a petition for assessment of
civil penalty under section 110(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and
Health Act of 1977 (the Act). At hearing, on January 27, 1993,
in London, Kentucky, petitioner filed a motion to approve a
settlement agreement and to dismiss the case. A reduction in
penalty from $11,400 to $2800 was proposed because of the limited
financial resources of the respondent. I have considered the
representations and documentation submitted in this case,
including the representations on the record at hearing, and I
conclude that the proffered settlement is appropriate under the
criteria set forth in section 110(i) of the Act.
WHEREFORE, the motion for approval of settlement is GRANTED,
and it is ORDERED that respondent pay a penalty of $2800 in 14
equal monthly installments of $200 each, beginning within 30 days
of the date of this order, and continuing until paid in full.
Roy J. Maurer
Administrative Law Judge
Distribution:
J. Philip Smith, Esq., Office of the Solicitor, U. S. Department
of Labor, 4015 Wilson Boulevard, 4th Floor, Arlington, VA 22203
(Certified Mail)
Mr. Fred Jones, 3707 Lot Mud Creek Road, Williamsburg, KY 40769
(Certified Mail)
dcp
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read what one judge decided for one employer in 1993, 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.