Ezel / Agency Decisions / weva-90-315-d-alj
FMSHRC ALJ decision Docket WEVA 90-315-D Decided August 27, 1991 Procedural Judge Avram Weisberger

Consolidation Coal Company

Michael E. Holland v. Consolidation Coal Company (FMSHRC WEVA 90-315-D): Discrimination complaint dismissed with prejudice

Apply this to your situation

This order from 1991 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 1991
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 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 E. Holland asked to withdraw his discrimination complaint against Consolidation Coal Company. Judge Avram Weisberger granted the motion and dismissed the case and related claims with prejudice. The order specifically included claims concerning Part 90 status, required metatarsal boots, and a claimed protected work refusal involving those boots.

Decision snapshot

  • Cited standards: None stated in this order.
  • Outcome: The discrimination proceeding and related claims were dismissed with prejudice.
  • Key point: The ALJ granted the complainant's withdrawal request and ended the claims listed in the order.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission
Office of Administrative Law Judges
2 Skyline, 10th Floor
5203 Leesburg Pike
Falls Church, Virginia 22041

MICHAEL E. HOLLAND, DISCRIMINATION PROCEEDING
COMPLAINANT
v. Docket No. WEVA 90-315-D
MSHA Case No. HOPE CD 90-17
CONSOLIDATION COAL COMPANY,
RESPONDENT Amonate No. 31 Mine

                                  DECISION

Appearances: H. John Taylor, Esq., Rand, West Virginia for
Complainant;
Laura E. Beverage, Esq., Jackson and Kelly,
Beckley, West Virginia for Respondent.

 On August 13, 1991, Complainant moved to withdraw his

pleadings in this case, and to withdraw his claims against
Respondent. Based on the assertions of counsel which were
presented orally on the record on August 13, 1991, Complainant's
Motion is allowed.

    It is ORDERED that this case to be DISMISSED with prejudice.

 It is further ORDERED that the Complainant's claims against

the Respondent, as articulated in his complaint, his five-page
statement to the investigator and his responses to discovery, are
hereby DISMISSED with prejudice to the Complainant. This Order
specifically includes any claim by the Complainant that the
Respondent has discriminated against him on the basis of his Part
90 status, that the Respondent has discriminated against him by
requiring him to wear metatarsal boots, and that the Complainant
has engaged in a protected work refusal by refusing to wear
metatarsal boots.

                                      Avram Weisberger
                                      Administrative Law Judge

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read what one judge decided for one employer in 1991, 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.