Scott D. McGlothlin v. Dominion Coal Corporation

Plain-English summary

Scott McGlothlin's counsel asked the Judge to certify immediate Commission review of whether agreed damages and attorney fees in a discrimination case prevented the Commission from reviewing the relief for reasonableness. Judge Jerold Feldman denied certification because section 105(c)(3) limits awards to reasonably incurred fees and Commission settlement oversight cannot be surrendered by agreement of the parties. He also found no novel legal question because Commission authority to review discrimination settlements was established. Immediate review would not speed the case because the Judge was issuing the final decision on relief at the same time. The Commission later reviewed that relief decision and held that the agreed attorney-fee provisions should have been approved.

Decision snapshot

• Governing provision: 30 U.S.C. § 815(c)(3)
• Outcome: The request to certify interlocutory review of the attorney-fee settlement issue was denied.
• Key point: The Judge viewed fee reasonableness and settlement oversight as established Commission responsibilities, though the later Commission decision approved the agreed fee terms.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

FEDERAL MINE SAFETY
AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

OFFICE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES

1331 Pennsylvania
Avenue NW, Suite 520N

Washington, D.C. 20004

February 8, 2016

SCOTT D. MCGLOTHLIN,

Complainant,

v.

DOMINION COAL CORPORATION,

Respondent.

DISCRIMINATION PROCEEDING

Docket No. VA 2014-233-D

NORT-CD-2013-04

Mine: Dominion No. 7

Mine ID: 44-06499

ORDER DENYING
COMPLAINANT’S

MOTION FOR
INTERLOCUTORY REVIEW

Before:            Judge Feldman

Before
me is a motion filed on February 5, 2016, by Scott D. McGlothlin’s counsel
requesting certification for the Commission’s interlocutory review.  Certification
of a request for interlocutory review requires a showing that the request for
review involves a novel question of law, and that immediate review will
materially advance the final disposition of the proceeding. 29 C.F.R. § 27.0076
(a)(1)(i).  McGlothlin’s counsel seek interlocutory review with regard to the
question of: Whether the parties’ proposed agreement on relief in a section
105(c)(3) proceeding, with respect to damages and reimbursement of attorney
fees, precludes Commission evaluation of the reasonableness of the agreed upon
relief.

Section 105(c)(3) states, in pertinent part:

. . . [in] granting such relief as [the
Commission] deems appropriate, [the Commission shall award] . . . a sum equal
to the aggregate amount of all costs and expenses (including attorney’s fees) as
determined by the Commission to have been reasonably incurred by the miner.
. . . 

30 U.S.C. § 815(c)(3)
(emphasis added).

Section 105(c)(3) provides that only reasonable
attorney fees may be awarded to complaints’ counsel. Attorney fees are awarded
by order the Commission, through force of law, pursuant to the fee shifting
provisions of section 105(c)(3). McGlothlin’s counsel’s assertion that their
proposed agreement on relief precludes Commission review of the reasonableness
of their claimed attorney fees is contrary to the plain statutory language. Moreover,
it is well settled that the authority to review and approve proposed
settlements in Commission cases has been delegated to the sound discretion of
the Commission and may not be ceded to the parties’

because of their mutual agreement. The Commission has held
that its delegated authority to approve settlements applies to proposed
agreements offered in section 105(c) discrimination proceedings.  Sec’y of
Labor o/b/o Maxey v. Leeco, Inc., 20 FMSHRC 707, 707 (July 1998).  

In fact, the Commission routinely considers
requests for settlement terms proffered by the parties in Commission
proceedings. Obviously, it is the parties’ agreement that is the predicate for
the exercise of the Commission’s authority to approve their settlement terms. The
suggestion that the Commission is obliged to accept settlement terms is
anathema to the Commission’s settlement oversight authority. McGlothlin’s
counsel’s assertion cannot be reconciled with the relevant statutory language
and case law. In short, the Commission’s authority to review proposed agreements
on relief in section 105(c)(3) proceedings is well established. Consequently,
McGlothlin’s counsel have failed to identify the requisite novel question of
law necessary to grant their request for certification for interlocutory
review.

With regard to the second element required for
certification for interlocutory review, granting the review sought by
McGlothlin’s counsel will not materially advance the final disposition of this
matter, as the Decision on Relief, which follows the Decision on Liability,  37
FMSHRC 1256 (June 2015) (ALJ), both of which constitute the final disposition
of this discrimination matter, is being released concurrently with this Order. To
grant interlocutory review at this juncture would delay, rather than expedite,
the final disposition of this proceeding, which has now occurred.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that
McGlothlin’s counsel’s Motion for Interlocutory Review IS DENIED.

/s/
Jerold Feldman

Jerold
Feldman

Administrative
Law Judge    

Distribution:

Evan B. Smith, Esq., Wes Addington, Esq., Appalachian
Citizens Law Center, Inc.,         317 Main Street, Whiteburg, KY 41858

Tony Oppegard, Esq., P.O. Box 22446, Lexington, KY 40522

David Hardy, Esq., Scott Wickline, Esq., Hardy Pence PLLC,
500 Lee Street East, Suite 701, P.O. Box 2548, Charleston, WV 25329