Ezel / Agency Decisions / penn-88-58-d-alj
FMSHRC ALJ decision Docket PENN 88-58-D Decided May 25, 1988 Procedural Judge Avram Weisberger

Darmac Associates Corp.

Darmac Associates Corp. (FMSHRC PENN 88-58-D): Discrimination complaint dismissed after settlement

Apply this to your situation

This order from 1988 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 1988
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.
Final ALJ decision, not Commission precedent
This decision became final under the 40-day rule in 30 U.S.C. § 823(d)(1) because no later Commission review appears in the official index. It binds the parties but is not binding on the Commission in other cases. 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

Kenneth J. Pedersen filed a discrimination complaint against Darmac Associates Corp. The company moved to dismiss, stating that the claims had been resolved through a settlement in a related National Labor Relations Board proceeding and that Pedersen consented to dismissal. Pedersen then filed a signed statement withdrawing his discrimination complaint and related appeal. Judge Avram Weisberger dismissed the complaint in the interest of justice under 29 C.F.R. § 2700.11.

Decision snapshot

  • Governing rule: 29 C.F.R. § 2700.11
  • Outcome: The discrimination complaint and related case were dismissed after the complainant withdrew the claims following a settlement.
  • Key point: A complainant may withdraw and dismiss a discrimination case after resolving the underlying claims through a related settlement.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

CCASE:
KENNETH PEDERSEN V. DARMAC ASSOC.
DDATE:
19880525
TTEXT:

Page 2

~683

                                FMSHRC-FCV
                               MAY 25, 1988

KENNETH J. PEDERSEN, DISCRIMINATION PROCEEDING
Complainant
v. Docket No. PENN 88-58-D

DARMAC ASSOCIATES CORP., PITT CD 87-17
Respondent

                       ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Before: Judge Weisberger

 On May 6, 1988, Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss Complaint's

complaint on the ground that his claims has been resolved in the
settlement of a related proceeding before the National Labor Relations
Board. In its Motion Respondent alleged that the Complainant consented
to this Motion. On May 6, 1988, the Complainant filed a signed statement
in which he indicated as follows "Based upon a resolution of all
outstanding claims arising from discharge from DARMAC Associates Corp.,
I hereby wish to withdraw my discrimination complaint and the appeal
pending before you."

 Therefore, in the interest of justice, the complaint herein is

DISMISSED, and this case is DISMISSED pursuant to 29 C.F.R. $ 2700.11.

                              Avram Weisberger
                              Administrative Law Judge

Distribution:

Mr. Kenneth J. Pedersen, Box 206, R. D. 1, Barnesboro, PA 15714 (Certified
Mail)

Stanley R. Geary, Esq., Rose, Schmidt, Hasley & DiSalle, 900 Oliver
Building, Pittsburgh, PA 15222-5369 (Certified Mail)

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read what one judge decided for one employer in 1988, and it binds only those parties. Ezel checks the current MSHA standards and Commission precedent and answers your specific situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the authority it relies on.