FMSHRC Commission decision Docket LAKE 86-45-D Decided February 28, 1989 Remanded

Paula Price v. Monterey Coal Company

Paula Price v. Monterey Coal Company (FMSHRC LAKE 86-45-D): Discrimination complaint remanded after jurisdiction ruling changed

Apply this precedent to your situation

This is citable Commission precedent from 1989, and it may have been appealed since. Ezel checks how it stands today and answers your situation, with citations.

Currency note: this decision dates from 1989
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.
Decision of the Commission
This is a decision of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission, the highest level of agency review, citable as Commission precedent. It may have been appealed to a U.S. Court of Appeals after issuance under 30 U.S.C. § 816; check subsequent history before relying on it. The Commission vacated its prior direction for review and remanded the discrimination complaint to the ALJ for further proceedings.
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

Paula Price filed a private Mine Act discrimination complaint against Monterey Coal Company before the Secretary had determined whether a violation occurred. The ALJ dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, relying on a Commission decision that required a prior Secretarial determination. While the case was under Commission review, the D.C. Circuit reversed the Commission's retroactive application of that rule. The Commission held that the basis for dismissal could not stand, vacated its direction for review, and remanded the case to the ALJ to complete the record and enter a decision.

Decision snapshot

  • Governing provisions: 30 U.S.C. § 815(c)(3); 29 C.F.R. § 2700.40(b)
  • Outcome: The Commission's prior direction for review was vacated, and the case was remanded to the ALJ for further proceedings.
  • Key point: A jurisdictional dismissal based on the Commission's later-reversed retroactive rule could not stand.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

CCASE:
PAULA PRICE V. MONTEREY COAL
DDATE:
19890228
TTEXT:

           FEDERAL MINE SAFETY & HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION
                          WASHINGTON, D.C.
                            February 28, 1989

PAULA PRICE

v. Docket No. LAKE 86-45-D

MONTEREY COAL COMPANY

BEFORE: Ford, Chairman, Backley, Doyle, Lastowka and Nelson,
Commissioners

                ORDER

BY THE COMMISSION:

In this discrimination proceeding, initiated by Paula Price
pursuant to Section 105(c)(3) of the Federal Mine Safety and
Health Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C. Sec. 815(c)(3), the administrative
law judge dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction because
Price had filed her private action with the Commission prior to a
determination by the Secretary that no violation had occurred.
9 FMSHRC 1663 (Sept. 1987). In reaching that conclusion, the judge
exclusively relied upon the then recently issued decision of the
Commission in the matter of Gilbert v. Sandy Fork Mining Company,
Inc., 9 FMSHRC 1327 (Aug. 1987), wherein the Commission invalidated
part of Procedural Rule 40(b), 29 C.F.R. 2700.40(b).*/ In its
decision, the Commission concluded that under Section 105(c)(3)
"the complainant may file his private action only after the Secretary
has informed the complainant of his determination that a violation
has not occurred." Gilbert at 1337 (emphasis in original).

Because the Commission's decision in Gilbert expressly
extended the holding to all pending Section 105(c)(3) cases, and
because the judge found that the required Secretarial determination
had not been made regarding Paula Price's complaint, the judge


Page 2

below concluded that dismissal of the complaint was required.

Subsequent to the Commission's direction for review in this

matter, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit issued his opinion in the case of Gilbert v.
FMSHRC, No. 87-1499 (January 27, 1.989), reversing the Commission's
retroactive application of revised Procedural Rule 40(b).


*/ That part of former Commission Procedural Rule 40(b) invalidated
by the Commission provided that a complainant could file a private
action for discrimination if the Secretary failed to make a
determination that no violation had occurred within 90 days after
the miner complained to MSHA.


Page 3

~184
In light of the D. C. Circuit's opinion, the stated basis
for the judge's dismissal of Price's Sec. 105(c)(3) complaint
cannot stand. Therefore, we remand the case to the administrative
law judge for the purpose of completing the record and entering a
decision. Accordingly, the Commission's direction for review
previously issued in this matter is hereby vacated and the case
remanded for further appropriate proceedings.

                FORD B. FORD, Chairman

                RICHARD V. BACKLEY, Commissioner

                JOYCE A. DOYLE, Commissioner

                JAMES A. LASTOWKA, Commissioner

                L. CLAIR NELSON, Commissioner

Distribution

Linda K. MacLachlan, Esq.
Michael J. Hoare Law Offices
314 North Broadway
St. Louis, Missouri 63102

Barry F. Wisor, Esq.
Office of the Solicitor
U.S. Department of Labor
4015 Wilson Blvd.
Arlington, VA 22203

Thomas C. Means, Esq.
Crowell & Moring
1001 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20004

Administrative Law Judge Gary Melick
Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission
5203 Leesburg Pike, Suite 1000
Falls Church, Virginia 22041

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read Commission precedent from 1989. 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.