Essroc Corporation (ALJ decision, January 31, 1992)

Plain-English summary

Clifford Meek brought a Mine Act discrimination proceeding against Essroc Corporation. An earlier decision found that Essroc discriminated against him by refusing to employ him because of his protected activities, but left monetary relief for a later decision. Judge William Fauver formally denied Essroc's motion to dismiss, finding that the earlier liability decision had already rejected the motion implicitly. The case remained open, and the parties were given 15 days to submit final proposals and supporting documents on monetary relief.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standard(s): 30 U.S.C. § 815(c).
• Outcome: The motion to dismiss was denied, and the discrimination proceeding continued for a final order on monetary relief.
• Key point: A liability decision that leaves monetary relief unresolved does not finally dispose of the proceeding.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

~263

Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission Office of Administrative Law Judges
2 Skyline, 10th Floor
5203 Leesburg Pike
Falls Church, Virginia 22041

CLIFFORD MEEK,
DISCRIMINATION PROCEEDING
COMPLAINANT
v. Docket No. LAKE 90-132-DM
MSHA Case No. UC MD-90-06
ESSROC CORPORATION,
RESPONDENT

SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION

Before: Judge Fauver

This discrimination proceeding was brought under 105(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C. 801 et seq.

On December 24, 1991, a decision on liability was entered finding that Respondent discriminated against Complainant by refusing to employ him because of his protected activities. As stated at page 12 of the decision, "This decision shall not be a final disposition of this proceeding until a supplemental decision is entered on monetary relief."

Further proceedings are in process on issues of monetary relief due Complainant.

Before considering the parties' proposals and arguments on monetary relief, I observe that a motion to dismiss has not been formally ruled upon; however, its denial is implicit from the decision on liability. This supplemental decision addresses the motion to dismiss, and sets a time for the parties to submit their final proposals and documents on monetary relief.

At the close of Complainant's evidence at the hearing, Respondent moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that Complainant had not made out a prima facie case of discrimination.

Denial of this motion is implicit in the decision on liability, which credits Complainant's evidence and finds that it establishes a prima facie case of discrimination. For the record, the motion to dismiss is hereby formally DENIED, for reasons included in the findings, conclusions and discussion in the decision on liability.

~264
This case is pending further procedures and a final order on monetary relief. If needed, a supplemental hearing will be scheduled on factual issues concerning monetary relief. The parties shall have 15 days from the date of this decision to submit their final proposals and supporting documents on monetary relief.

William Fauver
Administrative Law Judge