Ezel / Agency Decisions / WEVA 90-40-D

Southern Ohio Coal Company (ALJ decision, September 28, 1990)

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

Decision type
ALJ decision
Docket
WEVA 90-40-D
Decided
September 28, 1990
Presiding judge
Avram Weisberger
Outcome
Procedural
Precedential status
Final order, not precedent
Checked against source
2026-08-16
Official source
Read the official release (fmshrc.gov)
PDF
View Official PDF

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

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