Ezel / Agency Decisions / VA 91-26-D

Garden Creek Pocahontas Company (ALJ decision, June 12, 1991)

Garden Creek Pocahontas Company (FMSHRC VA 91-26-D): Discrimination complaint dismissed with prejudice

Decision type
ALJ decision
Docket
VA 91-26-D
Decided
June 12, 1991
Presiding judge
Roy J. Maurer
Outcome
Procedural
Precedential status
Final order, not precedent
Checked against source
2026-08-16
Official source
Read the official release (fmshrc.gov)
PDF
View Official PDF

Apply this to your situation

This order from 1991 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 1991
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

Linda Lester filed a discrimination complaint against Garden Creek Pocahontas Company concerning the Virginia Pocahontas #6 Mine. At the hearing, Lester moved to withdraw the complaint with prejudice and dismiss the case. Garden Creek did not object. Judge Roy J. Maurer granted the motion and dismissed the proceeding with prejudice.

Decision snapshot

  • Cited standards: None stated in the order.
  • Outcome: The discrimination proceeding was dismissed with prejudice on the complainant's motion.
  • Key point: The case ended after the complainant requested withdrawal and the respondent raised no objection.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission Office of Administrative Law Judges
2 Skyline, 10th Floor
5203 Leesburg Pike
Falls Church, Virginia 22041

LINDA LESTER,
DISCRIMINATION PROCEEDING
COMPLAINANT
v. Docket No. VA 91-26-D

GARDEN CREEK POCAHONTAS
NORT CD 90-14
COMPANY,
RESPONDENT
Virginia Pocahontas #6 Mine

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Appearances: Susan Oglebay, Esq., Castlewood, Virginia, for the Complainant;
Charlie R. Jessee, Esq., Yeary, Tate, Lowe & Jessee, P.C., Abingdon, Virginia, for the Respondent.

Before: Judge Maurer

At the hearing in Abingdon, Virginia, on April 25, 1991, Complainant, by counsel, moved to withdraw her complaint, with prejudice, and dismiss this case. Respondent does not object.

Accordingly, the Motion is GRANTED, and this proceeding is DISMISSED, with prejudice.

Roy J. Maurer
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