Secretary of Labor v. Northshore Mining Company, Roger Peterson, and Matthew Zimmer
Secretary of Labor v. Northshore Mining Company (FMSHRC LAKE 2017-0248): Court mandate sent flagrant penalty back for reassessment
Apply this precedent to your situation
This is citable Commission precedent from 2024, and it may have been appealed since. Ezel checks how it stands today and answers your situation, with citations.
Plain-English summary
The Commission had previously upheld reckless-disregard and unwarrantable-failure findings, deleted a flagrant designation, and rejected individual liability for two Northshore Mining employees. The Eighth Circuit reversed the Commission on the flagrant and individual-liability issues. Its mandate directed consideration of whether the penalty for the flagrant violation of the travelway standard should be reassessed. The Commission therefore remanded the matter to the Chief Administrative Law Judge for that penalty determination.
Decision snapshot
- Cited standard: 30 C.F.R. § 56.11002
- Outcome: The case was remanded for consideration of reassessing the penalty for the flagrant violation in Order No. 8897220.
- Key point: After the court restored the flagrant designation, the remaining agency task was to determine whether the penalty should change.
Full text (FMSHRC public release)
FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION
1331 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, NW, SUITE 520N
WASHINGTON, DC 20004-1710
SECRETARY OF
LABOR, :
MINE SAFETY AND
HEALTH :
ADMINISTRATION
(MSHA) :
:
v.
: Docket Nos. LAKE 2017-0248
:
LAKE 2017-0224
:
LAKE 2018-0146
:
LAKE 2018-0141
:
:
NORTHSHORE MINING
COMPANY, :
ROGER PETERSON,
employed by :
NORTHSHORE MIINING
COMPANY, and :
MATTHEW ZIMMER,
employed by :
NORTHSHORE MINING
COMPANY :
BEFORE: Jordan,
Chair; Althen, Rajkovich, Baker, and Marvit, Commissioners
DECISION
BY THE COMMISSION:
These
proceedings arise under the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, 30
U.S.C. § 801 et seq. (2018) (“Mine Act” or “Act”) from Cross Petitions for Discretionary
Review filed by the parties. On January 21, 2021, the Commission affirmed the Administrative
Law Judge’s findings of reckless disregard and unwarrantable failure
designations, affirmed the Judge’s deletion of a flagrant designation, and
reversed the Judge’s findings of individual liability under section 110(c) of
the Act. 30 U.S.C. § 820(c).
On
August 22, 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit issued a
decision reversing the Commission’s decision on the issues of the flagrant
designation and individual liability. The court remanded the case “for
consideration of whether the penalty amount for [the flagrant violation of 30
C.F.R. 56.11002 set forth in Order No. 8897220] should be reassessed.” The
Court subsequently issued its mandate on October 13, 2022.
In
accordance with the court’s decision, the Commission hereby remands this matter
to the Office of the Chief Administrative Law Judge for consideration of
whether the penalty amount for the flagrant violation of 30 C.F.R. 56.11002 set
forth in Order No. 8897220 should be reassessed.
/s/ Mary Lu
Jordan
Mary Lu Jordan, Chair
/s/ William I. Althen
William I. Althen, Commissioner
/s/ Marco M. Rajkovich, Jr.
Marco M. Rajkovich, Jr., Commissioner
/s/ Timothy J. Baker
Timothy J. Baker, Commissioner
/s/ Moshe Z. Marvit
Moshe
Z. Marvit, Commissioner
Distribution:
R. Henry Moore,
Esq.
Fisher &
Phillips LLP
Six PPG Place,
Suite 830
Pittsburgh, PA
15222
Emily
Toler Scott, Esq.
Division
of Mine Safety and Health
Office
of the Solicitor
U.S.
Department of Labor
201
12th Street South – Suite 401
Arlington,
VA 22202-5450
April
Nelson, Esq.
Office
of the Solicitor
U.S.
Department of Labor
201
12th St. South-Suite 401
Arlington,
VA 22202-5450
Melanie
Garris
Office
of Civil Penalty Compliance, MSHA
U.S.
Department of Labor
201
12th Street South, Suite 401
Arlington,
VA 22202-5450
Chief
Administrative Law Judge Glynn F. Voisin
Federal Mine Safety Health Review Commission
1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Suite 520N
Washington, DC 20004-1710
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read Commission precedent from 2024. Ezel checks whether it still stands, including any court review since, and answers your specific situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the authority it relies on.