Phelps Dodge Corporation
Phelps Dodge Corporation (FMSHRC WEST 89-21-DM): Discrimination complaint dismissed
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.
Plain-English summary
Randy G. Davis filed a discrimination complaint against Phelps Dodge Corporation in October 1988. He later told the judge by telephone that he wanted to drop the case but did not provide the written confirmation the judge requested. After a February 1989 order to show cause, served by certified mail, Davis still did not respond. Judge John J. Morris dismissed the complaint for failure to comply with the order.
Decision snapshot
- Cited provision: None stated in the order.
- Outcome: The discrimination complaint was dismissed.
- Key point: The ALJ dismissed the case after the complainant failed to respond to an order to show cause.
Full text (FMSHRC public release)
CCASE:
RANDY DAVIS V. PHEPLS DODGE
DDATE:
19890320
TTEXT:
~381
Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission (F.M.S.H.R.C.)
Office of Administrative Law Judges
RANDY G. DAVIS, DISCRIMINATION PROCEEDING
COMPLAINANT
Docket No. WEST 89-21-DM
v.
MD 88-38
PHELPS DODGE CORPORATION,
RESPONDENT
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Before: Judge Morris
1. On October 21, 1988, Complainant Randy G. Davis filed his
complaint of discrimination herein.
2. With his complaint he filed a note reading, in part, "We
are in the process of looking for an attorney, we will supplement
this appeal in the near future."
3. In January 1989 complainant, in a telephone call, told
the judge that he desired to drop his case against respondent.
The judge directed complainant to confirm his request in writing.
No such written request was filed.
4. On February 6, 1989, the judge issued an order to show
cause directing complainant to write to the judge and indicate
whether he desired to pursue his claim. Further, the order
indicated that if the judge received no correspondence he would
dismiss the case.
5. The above order was served on complainant by certified
mail and complainant has failed to comply with the order.
For the foregoing reasons, the complaint of discrimination
filed herein is dismissed.
John J. Morris
Administrative Law Judge
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read what one judge decided for one employer in 1989, and it binds only those parties. Ezel checks the current MSHA standards and Commission precedent and answers your specific situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the authority it relies on.