Ezel / Agency Decisions / weva-90-40-d-alj
FMSHRC ALJ decision Docket WEVA 90-40-D Decided September 28, 1990 Procedural Judge Avram Weisberger Transcribed from scan

Southern Ohio Coal Company

Southern Ohio Coal Company (FMSHRC WEVA 90-40-D): Discrimination case dismissed for default

Apply this to your situation

This order from 1990 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 1990
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. 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.
Transcribed from a scanned original: FMSHRC released this decision as an image-only file. The full text below is a machine transcription, proofread against the scan. Check the official release before quoting exact language.
Read the official release (fmshrc.gov)

Plain-English summary

Cynthia Ray brought a discrimination proceeding against Southern Ohio Coal Company. After the company moved to dismiss, the judge ordered Ray to respond and later granted an extension when she said she was considering obtaining counsel. Ray did not file a response to the motion or the show-cause order by the extended deadline. Judge Avram Weisberger found that she had defaulted by failing to comply with the order to show cause and dismissed the case.

Decision snapshot

  • Cited standards: None stated in the order.
  • Outcome: The discrimination proceeding was dismissed for failure to respond to the motion to dismiss and show-cause order.
  • Key point: A party's failure to comply with a show-cause order can result in dismissal for default.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

CCASE:
CYNTHIA RAY V. SOUTHERN OHIO COAL
DDATE:
19900928
TTEXT:

Page 2

~1910
Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission (F.M.S.H.R.C.)
Office of Administrative Law Judges

CYNTHIA RAY, DISCRIMINATION PROCEEDING
COMPLAINANT
Docket No. WEVA 90-40-D
v.
MORG-CD 87-1
SOUTHERN OHIO COAL COMPANY,
RESPONDENT Martinka No. 1 Mine

                      ORDER OF DISMISSAL

 On July 18, 1990, Respondent filed an Answer in the above

captioned proceeding. In its Answer, Respondent made a Motion to
Dismiss. In a Certificate of Service, attached to the Answer,
Counsel for Respondent indicated that the Answer and Affirmative
Defenses were served to Complainant on July 16, 1990. To date
Complainant has not responded to the Motion to Dismiss.

 On August 3, 1990, a Show Cause Order was issued as follows:

"Complainant (Cynthia Ray) is ORDERED to file a reply to
Respondent's Motion to Dismiss within 10 days of the date of this
Order. Failure by Complainant to file such a reply shall result
in this case being dismissed."

 On August 28, 1990, Complainant called the Commission and

spoke to the undersigned's secretary, and asked for a
continuance. A telephone conference call was held on August 29,
1990, between Complainant, Counsel for Respondent, and the
undersigned. The Complainant indicated she had received the
Respondent's Motion to Dismiss, and was considering obtaining
counsel. Complainant was allowed an extension until September 10,
1990, to file an Answer to the Motion to Dismiss. On September
11, 1990, Respondent filed a statement requesting an immediate
ruling on its Motion. Neither Complainant, nor any Counsel on her
behalf, filed a Response to the Motion to Dismiss.

 Accordingly, inasmuch as no Reply has been filed by

Complainant to either the Show Cause Order or Respondent's Motion
to Dismiss, I find the Complainant has defaulted by not complying
with the Order to Show Cause.

    It is ORDERED that this case be DISMISSED.

                                  Avram Weisberger
                                  Administrative Law Judge

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read what one judge decided for one employer in 1990, 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.