Arch of Illinois (Commission decision, May 9, 2000)
Arch of Illinois (FMSHRC LAKE 98-17-D): Reconsideration denied as untimely
Apply this precedent to your situation
This is citable Commission precedent from 2000, and it may have been appealed since. Ezel checks how it stands today and answers your situation, with citations.
Plain-English summary
Gary D. Morgan asked the Commission to reconsider its denial of discretionary review and requested scientific analysis of test results in his discrimination case against Arch of Illinois. The Commission denied reconsideration because the motion was filed after the 10-day deadline in Commission Procedural Rule 78. It also stated that the request would fail on the merits because Morgan offered no new arguments and reopening the record was inappropriate at that stage. The Commission denied both motions.
Decision snapshot
- Governing provision: 29 C.F.R. § 2700.78
- Outcome: The motion for reconsideration and the motion to have test results scientifically analyzed were denied.
- Key point: An untimely reconsideration motion cannot reopen the record, and the Commission found no new argument that would justify relief in any event.
Full text (FMSHRC public release)
FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION 1730 K STREET NW, 6TH FLOOR
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006
May 9, 2000
GARY D. MORGAN
:
:
: Docket No. LAKE 98-17-D
:
v. :
:
:
ARCH OF ILLINOIS
:
ORDER
On April 21, 2000, the Commission received a Motion to Reconsider Previous Petition for Discretionary Review and Motion to Have Test Results Scientifically Analyzed from the complainant, Gary D. Morgan. Under Commission Procedural Rule 78, 29 C.F.R. § 2700.78, a motion for reconsideration must be filed within 10 days after a decision or order by the Commission. The Commission denied Morgan’s petition for discretionary review on March 24, 2000. Accordingly, Morgan’s motion for reconsideration is untimely under the Commission’s rules.
Moreover, having examined the arguments raised by Morgan’s motion, we would deny the request for reconsideration in any event. In his motion, Morgan has not raised any new arguments concerning the judge’s decisions that the Commission has not already considered. Further, Morgan’s motion to have his test results scientifically analyzed is essentially a request to reopen the record, which would be inappropriate at this stage of these proceedings.
22 FMSHRC 586
Page 2
For the foregoing reasons, the Motion to Reconsider and the Motion to Have Test Results Scientifically Analyzed are denied.1
Mary Lu Jordan, Chairman
James C. Riley, Commissioner
Theodore F. Verheggen, Commissioner
Robert H. Beatty, Jr., Commissioner
1
Commissioner Marks would grant the relief requested in the motions.
22 FMSHRC 587
Page 3
Distribution
Leonard D. Rice, Esq.
404 South Washington Street
Du Quoin, IL 62832
for Gary Morgan
Marco J. Rajkovich, Jr., Esq.
Robert I. Cusick, Esq.
Wyatt, Tarrant & Combs
250 West Main Street, Suite 1700
Lexington, KY 40507
for Arch of Illinois
22 FMSHRC 588
Does this precedent still control your case?
Ezel checks whether it still stands, including any court review since, and applies it to your situation 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