Ezel / Agency Decisions / WEVA 84-84-D

Nancy S. Bowen v. Pond Creek Mining Company (ALJ decision, March 6, 1985)

Nancy S. Bowen v. Pond Creek Mining Company (FMSHRC WEVA 84-84-D): Discrimination complaint dismissed after no response

Decision type
ALJ decision
Docket
WEVA 84-84-D
Decided
March 6, 1985
Presiding judge
Paul Merlin
Outcome
Procedural
Precedential status
Final order, not precedent
Checked against source
2026-10-20
Official source
Read the official release (fmshrc.gov)
PDF
View Official PDF

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.

Currency note: this decision dates from 1985
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 for this docket. 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

Nancy S. Bowen brought a discrimination complaint against Pond Creek Mining Company. Chief Administrative Law Judge Paul Merlin twice ordered her to explain why the complaint should not be dismissed for failure to provide requested information. The response periods expired without a reply. The judge dismissed the case without deciding the underlying discrimination claim. The order states no monetary penalty.

Decision snapshot

  • Cited standard(s): None stated in this dismissal order.
  • Outcome: Discrimination complaint dismissed after the complainant failed to respond to two show-cause orders; no penalty stated.
  • Key point: A complainant's failure to answer repeated show-cause orders ended the proceeding.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

CCASE:
NANCY S. BOWEN v. POND CREEK MINING
DDATE:
19850306
TTEXT:
~371

Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission Office of Administrative Law Judges

NANCY S. BOWEN,
DISCRIMINATION PROCEEDING
COMPLAINANT
Docket No. WEVA 84-84-D
v.
HOPE CD 83-32
POND CREEK MINING
COMPANY,
RESPONDENT

ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Before: Judge Merlin

On April 13, 1984, an order was issued to Complainant to show cause why her complaint of discrimination should not be dismissed for failure to provide certain information. On September 13, 1984 a second show cause was issued. The period allowed in these orders for response has expired and no reply has been received from Complainant.

Accordingly, the case is DISMISSED.

Paul Merlin
Chief 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