Joseph W. Herman v. Imco Services (Commission decision, January 27, 1983)
Joseph W. Herman v. Imco Services (FMSHRC WEST 81-109-DM): Reconsideration of untimely complaint dismissal denied
Apply this precedent to your situation
This is citable Commission precedent from 1983, and it may have been appealed since. Ezel checks how it stands today and answers your situation, with citations.
Plain-English summary
The Commission had affirmed dismissal of Joseph Herman's discrimination complaint as untimely in December 1982. Herman then submitted a document that the Commission treated as a request to reconsider that decision. The Commission found no merit in the request and denied it. It also said that a requested court appeal was for Herman to pursue under the applicable appellate procedures, rather than an action the Commission could take for him.
Decision snapshot
- Governing provisions: 30 U.S.C. § 815(c), discrimination complaints; 29 C.F.R. § 2700.75, reconsideration.
- Outcome: Reconsideration denied; earlier dismissal left in place.
- Key point: The Commission found no basis to reopen its untimeliness ruling and did not itself initiate court review.
Full text (FMSHRC public release)
CCASE:
JOSEPH HERMAN V. IMCO SERVICES
DDATE:
19830127
TTEXT:
FEDERAL MINE SAFETY & HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. January 27, 1983 JOSEPH W. HERMAN
v. Docket No. WEST 81-109-DM
IMCO SERVICES
ORDER
On December 15, 1982, the Commission issued its decision in this case affirming the administrative law judge's dismissal of Joseph W. Herman's discrimination complaint as untimely filed under section 105(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C.
$ 815(c). On January 18, 1983, we received a document filed by Mr. Herman. We construe the document to be a request for reconsideration of the Commission's decision. 29 C.F.R. $ 2700.75. We find no merit in the request and, accordingly, it is denied. We note Mr. Herman's request for "an appeal ... to the next judicial court available to me." We can take no action regarding this request. If complainant desires to appeal the Commission's decision to a United States Court of Appeals, the appropriate procedures set forth in section 106(a)(1) of the Act (30 U.S.C.
$ 816(a)(1)) and the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure must be followed by him.
~2
Distribution
Joseph W. Herman
3525 San Mateo Ave.
Reno, Nevada 89509
Richard 0. Kwapil, Jr., Esq.
Woodburn, Wedge, Blakey and Jeppson
First Interstate Bank Bldg., 16th Fl.
One East First St.
Reno, Nevada 89509
Administrative Law Judge John Morris
Fed. Mine Safety & Health Rev. Commission 333 West Colfax Avenue, Suite 400 Denver, Colorado 80204
Does this precedent still control your case?
Ezel checks whether it still stands, including any court review since, and applies it to your situation 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