Morningside Development MSHA Corporation (ALJ decision, June 13, 1991)
Morningside Development MSHA Corporation (FMSHRC WEVA 91-23-D): Backpay and reinstatement ordered after default
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.
Plain-English summary
Avis B. Perkins brought a Mine Act discrimination proceeding against Morningside Development Corporation concerning the Little Falls Mine. After the respondent defaulted by not filing an answer, the judge directed Perkins to identify the relief requested. Perkins sought $10,000 in punitive damages, backpay, attorney fees, and travel expenses. Judge Avram Weisberger held that the Mine Act and Commission rules did not authorize punitive damages and that the record lacked evidence to support them, but found the remaining relief proper. The order directed Morningside to pay $24,000 in backpay, $950 in attorney fees, and $286.50 in travel expenses, and to reinstate Perkins to his prior position.
Decision snapshot
- Governing provision: 30 U.S.C. § 815
- Outcome: Punitive damages were denied, while backpay, attorney fees, travel expenses, and reinstatement were ordered.
- Key point: A defaulted respondent was ordered to provide the relief authorized by the Mine Act, but punitive damages were unavailable and unsupported by the record.
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
AVIS B. PERKINS,
DISCRIMINATION PROCEEDING
COMPLAINANT
v. Docket No. WEVA 91-23-D
MORNINGSIDE DEVELOPMENT
MSHA Case No. MORG CD 90-12
CORPORATION,
RESPONDENT
Little Falls Mine
ORDER
On April 25, 1991, an order was issued directing Complainant to file a Statement indicating the specific relief requested. It was further provided in the order that Respondent shall have 20 days from the date service of the Statement is attempted, to reply to the statement. Complainant's statement was received by the Commission on May 17, 1991. In its statement, Complainant's counsel certified that he mailed Respondent a copy of the statement on May 14, 1991. Respondent has not filed any response to Complainant's Statement.
Complainant seeks the imposition of punitive damages in the amount of $10,000. The complaint in this case was filed pursuant to Section 105 of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (the Act). Neither section 105, supra, nor the Rules of the Commission, 29 C.F.R. 2700 et seq., provide for the imposition of punitive damages. Further, such relief is not proper in this case. The record does not contain any evidence surrounding the alleged discriminatory acts, as there was no evidentiary hearing in this matter, because Respondent had defaulted in not filing an Answer. Hence, there are no facts before me to support the imposition of punitive damages.
The balance of relief sought by Complainant is proper under the Act.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that, within 30 days of this Order, Respondent shall pay Complainant the following sums:
(1) Backpay from July 13, 1990 totalling $24,000.00
(2) Attorney Fees
$ 950.00
(3) Travel expenses in seeking employment $ 286.50
$25,236.50
It is further ORDERED that Respondent shall, within 30 days of this Order reinstate Complaint to his prior position.
Avram Weisberger
Administrative Law Judge
(703) 756-6210
FAX (703) 756-6201
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