Ezel / Agency Decisions / SE 83-52-D

Billy Ray Harness v. Royal Jellico Coal Co., Inc. (ALJ decision, November 30, 1983)

Billy Ray Harness v. Royal Jellico Coal Co., Inc. (FMSHRC SE 83-52-D): Discrimination complaint withdrawn

Decision type
ALJ decision
Docket
SE 83-52-D
Decided
November 30, 1983
Presiding judge
Gary Melick
Outcome
Procedural
Precedential status
Final order, not precedent
Checked against source
2026-10-21
Official source
Read the official release (fmshrc.gov)
PDF
View Official PDF

Apply this to your situation

This order from 1983 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 1983
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 dismissal 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

Billy Ray Harness filed a discrimination complaint against Royal Jellico Coal Co., Inc. At the hearing, he asked to withdraw it because he acknowledged that the company had discharged him before he made the safety complaint he described as protected activity. Judge Gary Melick permitted the withdrawal and dismissed the case. The order does not decide the underlying safety concern.

Decision snapshot

  • Cited standards: None identified in this order.
  • Outcome: Withdrawal permitted; discrimination complaint dismissed.
  • Key point: The alleged safety complaint came after the discharge, so Harness withdrew his claim.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

CCASE:
BILLY HARNESS V. ROYAL JELLICO COAL
DDATE:
19831130
TTEXT:
~2003

Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission Office of Administrative Law Judges

BILLY RAY HARNESS,
DISCRIMINATION PROCEEDING
CONTESTANT
Docket No. SE 83-52-D v.
MSHA Case No. BARB
ROYAL JELLICO COAL CO., INC.,
CD 83-22
RESPONDENT

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Appearances: Art Roberts, Jr., Esq., Knoxville, Tennessee, for Contestant Jerome Templeton, Esq., Knoxville, Tennessee, for Respondent

Before: Judge Melick.

At hearing, the Complainant requested approval to withdraw his complaint in the captioned case for the reason that the adverse action taken against him (discharge) admittedly occurred before the alleged protected activity (safety complaint). Under the circumstances, permission to withdraw was granted. 29 CFR 2700.11. The case is therefore dismissed.

Gary Melick
Assistant Chief Administrative Law Judge

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