Leeco, Incorporated (ALJ decision, April 12, 1996)

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

Decision type
ALJ decision
Docket
KENT 96-53-D
Decided
April 12, 1996
Presiding judge
Outcome
Settled
Precedential status
Interlocutory order, not final
Checked against source
2026-08-13
Cited standards

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

What applies to your situation today?

This order bound one employer. Ezel checks the current MSHA standards and Commission precedent against your facts, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace