Tanoma Mining Company (ALJ decision, March 21, 1995)

Tanoma Mining Company (FMSHRC PENN 93-382-D): Discrimination complaint settled for $500

Decision type
ALJ decision
Docket
PENN 93-382-D
Decided
March 21, 1995
Presiding judge
Outcome
Settled
Precedential status
Final order, not precedent
Checked against source
2026-08-13
Cited standards

Apply this to your situation

This order from 1995 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 1995
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 Commission precedent. 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

Tanoma Mining Company was accused of discriminating against James P. Lamont after he reported four accidents during the previous year and received a disciplinary letter under the company's new accident reduction program. The Secretary's complaint sought remedies for Lamont and a civil penalty against the company. The parties settled without admitting liability. Tanoma agreed to rescind the accident reduction program, remove references to the disciplinary letter from Lamont's personnel records, and not discriminate against him in the future. Judge Jerold Feldman approved the settlement, required payment of a $500 civil penalty within 30 days, and dismissed the complaint with prejudice after the settlement terms were satisfied.

Decision snapshot

  • Governing provision: 30 U.S.C. § 815(c)(2)
  • Outcome: Settlement approved, with a $500 civil penalty and dismissal with prejudice after timely payment and satisfaction of the settlement terms.
  • Key point: The approved settlement required corrective employment actions and a reduced civil penalty, without an admission of liability.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

FEDERAL MINE AND SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES
2 SKYLINE, 10th FLOOR
5203 LEESBURG PIKE
FALLS CHURCH, VIRGINIA 22041

March 21, 1995

SECRETARY OF LABOR,
: DISCRIMINATION PROCEEDING
MINE AND SAFETY AND HEALTH :
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA),
: Docket No. PENN 93-382-D
ON BEHALF OF
: MSHA Case No. Pitt CD 93-01
JAMES P. LAMONT,
: Tanoma Mine
Complainant
: SOL No. 3950131
:
TANOMA MINING COMPANY,
:
Respondent
:
:
DECISION APPROVING SETTLEMENT

Before: Judge Feldman

This discrimination complaint was filed on June 9, 1993, by the Secretary on behalf of James P. Lamont pursuant to Section 105(c)(2) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C. ' 815(c)(2). The subject complaint arises out of an allegation by Lamont that he was illegally discriminated against on September 15, 1992, when he received a disciplinary letter after reporting four accidents in the previous year. The disciplinary letter was issued in conjunction with the respondent's newly implemented accident reduction program. On July 13, 1993, the Secretary filed an amended complaint seeking, in addition to the remedies sought on behalf of Lamont, to assess a civil penalty of $3,000 against the respondent.

This matter was stayed on August 5, 1993, pending the outcome of the Commission's decision in Swift v. Consolidation Coal Company, 16 FMSHRC 201 (February 1994). Following the Commission's decision in Swift, on November 25, 1994, I lifted the stay and set this case for hearing on December 29, 1994. The case was continued without date after counsel for the Secretary advised that the parties had reached settlement. A joint motion to approve settlement was filed on February 27, 1995.

For the purposes of settlement, the respondent has agreed: to rescind its accident reduction program; to expunge any references to the disciplinary letter in issue from Lamont's personnel records; and to ensure that Lamont will not be discriminated against in the future. With respect to the


Page 2

proposed civil penalty, the respondent has agreed to pay a reduced civil penalty of $500.
The parties' settlement terms provide that the terms of resolution are for settlement purposes only. The parties do not admit liability in this matter and the parties agree that nothing herein shall bind the parties in the event of future litigation concerning issues that are similar to this case.

Under the circumstances herein, the parties' joint motion to approve settlement IS GRANTED. The respondent shall pay a civil penalty of $500 within 30 days of the date of this decision. Upon timely receipt of payment and satisfaction of the settlement terms, the discrimination complaint filed on behalf of James P. Lamont IS DISMISSED with prejudice.

Jerold Feldman
Administrative Law Judge

Distribution:

Theresa C. Timlin, Esq., Office of the Solicitor, U.S. Department of Labor, Room 14480, Gateway Building, 3535 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104

Joseph A. Yuhas, Esq., 1809 Chestnut Avenue, P.O. Box 25, Barnesboro, PA 15714

/rb

What applies to your situation today?

This order bound one employer. Ezel checks the current MSHA standards and Commission precedent against your facts, 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