Ezel / Agency Decisions / WEST 89-172-DM

James Hamilton Construction (ALJ decision, July 7, 1989)

James Hamilton Construction (FMSHRC WEST 89-172-DM): Settlement approved and discrimination case dismissed

Decision type
ALJ decision
Docket
WEST 89-172-DM
Decided
July 7, 1989
Presiding judge
Michael A. Lasher
Outcome
Settled
Precedential status
Final order, not precedent
Checked against source
2026-08-17
Official source
Read the official release (fmshrc.gov)
PDF
View Official PDF

Apply this to your situation

This order from 1989 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 1989
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 order, not Commission precedent
This decision by a FMSHRC Administrative Law Judge became the final decision of the Commission 40 days after issuance because the Commission did not direct review (30 U.S.C. § 823(d)(1)). It binds the parties but is not binding on the Commission in other cases. 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

Michael Albert Swinney brought this Mine Act discrimination proceeding against James Hamilton Construction. The parties reached a settlement under which the respondent would pay Swinney $1,000 and Swinney would dismiss the matter and waive civil penalties. Judge Michael A. Lasher found the settlement appropriate and approved it. The respondent was ordered to pay immediately, after which the proceeding would be dismissed with prejudice.

Decision snapshot

  • Cited standard: None stated in the decision.
  • Outcome: The settlement was approved, payment of $1,000 was ordered, and the proceeding was dismissed with prejudice upon payment.
  • Key point: The judge approved the parties' amicable resolution and conditioned dismissal on payment under the settlement.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

CCASE:
SOL (MSHA) V. J. HAMILTON CONSTRUCTION
DDATE:
19890707
TTEXT:

~1245
Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission (F.M.S.H.R.C.) Office of Administrative Law Judges

SECRETARY OF LABOR,
DISCRIMINATION PROCEEDING
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA),
Docket No. WEST 89-172-DM
ON BEHALF OF
MICHAEL ALBERT SWINNEY,
MD 88-51
COMPLAINANT
Morenci Mine v.

JAMES HAMILTON CONSTRUCTION,
RESPONDENT

DECISION APPROVING SETTLEMENT

Before: Judge Lasher

The parties have reached an amicable resolution of this matter. The terms of the agreement are that Complainant, in return for the payment of $1,000.00, agrees to dismiss this matter. Complainant also waives civil penalties.

In the premises, the settlement appears appropriate and is approved. Accordingly, if it has not previously done so, Respondent is ordered to pay Complainant the sum of $1,000.00 in accord with the settlement agreement immediately upon receipt of this decision. It is further ordered that upon such payment these proceedings be deemed dismissed with prejudice with each party to bear his(its) own costs.

Michael A. Lasher
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