Ezel / Agency Decisions / kent-96-53-d-alj
FMSHRC ALJ decision Docket KENT 96-53-D Decided April 12, 1996 Settled Judge David F. Barbour

Leeco, Incorporated

Leeco, Incorporated (FMSHRC KENT 96-53-D): Settlement confidentiality order

Apply this to your situation

This order from 1996 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 1996
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.
Interim ALJ order, not Commission precedent
This order imposed confidentiality terms while the judge prepared a written settlement decision. It did not itself dispose of the discrimination proceeding or become a final decision under the 40-day rule in 30 U.S.C. § 823(d)(1). It 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.
Read the official release (fmshrc.gov)

Plain-English summary

The Secretary brought a discrimination proceeding on behalf of Frank Scott against Leeco. After a hearing began, the parties reached a settlement and placed its terms on the record. The judge orally approved the settlement but stated that a written decision would follow. At the parties' request, the judge ordered the settlement terms and related transcript material to remain confidential until the written decision issued, with disclosure limited to counsel of record and Scott.

Decision snapshot

  • Cited provision(s): 30 U.S.C. § 815(c)
  • Outcome: The judge imposed temporary confidentiality requirements on the settlement terms and transcript while awaiting a written approval decision.
  • Key point: Settlement terms placed on the record may remain confidential by order until the written decision is issued.

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

                        April 12, 1996

SECRETARY OF LABOR, : DISCRIMINATION PROCEEDING
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH :
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA), : Docket No. Kent 96-53-D
On Behalf of Frank Scott, : MSHA Case No. BARB CD 95-21
Complainant :
v. : No. 68 Mine
:
LEECO, INCORPORATED, :
Respondent :

            ORDER IMPOSING RULE OF CONFIDENTIALITY

 On April 9, 1996, and subsequent to the commencement of a

hearing on the merits of this discrimination proceeding, the
parties agreed to settle the matter. The terms and conditions of
the settlement were placed on the record. Counsels orally affirmed
their agreement to the terms and conditions, as did Frank Scott,
the person upon whose behalf the complaint was brought. I orally
approved the settlement and upon receipt of the transcript I will
affirm that approval in a written decision. The parties requested
that the terms of the settlement with respect to Scott be sealed.
I agreed and stated that I would include that condition in the
written decision. The terms and conditions of the settlement will
be subject to review only by the Commission or another appellate
body.

 The parties are advise that until a written decision is

issued, the terms and conditions of the settlement are to remain
CONFIDENTIAL. Counsel are ORDERED not to discuss the terms and
conditions with any persons other than counsels of record and
Scott. Further, when copies of the transcript are received,
counsels are ORDERED not to give copies of the transcript to any
persons, excepting each other or Scott, or to otherwise divulge the
contents of the transcript as it relates to the terms and
conditions of the settlement.

                               David F. Barbour
                               Administrative Law Judge

Distribution:

Mary Sue Taylor, Esq., Office of the Solicitor, U.S. Dept. Of
Labor, 2002 Richard Jones Rd., Ste. B-201, Nashville, TN 37215-2862
(Certified Mail)

Page 2

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

Leona A. Power, Esq., Reece & Lang, P.S.C., London Bank & Trust
Bldg., 400 South Main St., P.O. Drawer 5087, London, KY 40745-5087
(Certified Mail)

Marco M. Rajkovich, Jr., Esq., Wyatt, Tarrant & Combs
1700 Lexington Financial Circle, Lexington, KY 40507
(Certified Mail)

\mca

                            2

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read what one judge decided for one employer in 1996, 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.