Bobby W. Campbell v. Daniels Construction Company (ALJ decision, April 16, 1985)
Bobby W. Campbell v. Daniels Construction Company (FMSHRC WEST 83-86-DM): Discrimination case settled
Apply this to your situation
This order from 1985 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.
Plain-English summary
Bobby W. Campbell and Daniels Construction Company settled a discrimination proceeding arising from the end of Campbell's employment. Daniels agreed to pay Campbell an amount the decision does not disclose. Campbell agreed to withdraw his complaint, release the company from claims, and not seek work with Daniels or its subsidiaries or divisions. Daniels did not admit a violation. Judge John A. Carlson approved the agreement and ordered payment, after which the remaining terms would take effect and the proceeding would be dismissed with prejudice.
Decision snapshot
- Cited standards: None identified in the decision.
- Outcome: Settlement approved; dismissal with prejudice to follow payment of an undisclosed amount.
- Key point: The settlement resolved the claim without an admission of a violation.
Full text (FMSHRC public release)
CCASE:
BOBBY W. CAMPBELL V. DANIELS CONSTRUCTION DDATE: 19850416 TTEXT:
~570
Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission Office of Administrative Law Judges
BOBBY W. CAMPBELL,
DISCRIMINATION PROCEEDING
COMPLAINANT
Docket No. WEST 83-86-DM v.
MSHA Case No. MD 83-15
DANIELS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,
RESPONDENT
DECISION APPROVING SETTLEMENT
Before: Judge Carlson
The parties, through counsel, have filed a stipulation which settles all matters at issue in this discrimination proceeding.
At the center of the settlement is an agreement by the respondent to pay a sum of money to complainant in return for which complainant agrees not to seek employment with respondent or its subsidiaries or divisions, and in which complainant agrees to withdraw his complaint and to release respondent from any and all claims.
The parties further stipulate that respondent admits no violation of the Federal Mine Safety Act or any other law, state or federal, in terminating complainant's employment.
I conclude that the proposed settlement should be approved in all respects. Respondent shall therefore pay to complainant, with dispatch, the monies agreed upon, whereupon all other provisions of the settlement shall be deemed in effect, and this proceeding shall be dismissed with prejudice.
SO ORDERED.
John A. Carlson
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