FMSHRC ALJ decision Docket WEVA 94-357-D Decided September 26, 1995 Modified Judge Roy J. Maurer

Secretary of Labor on behalf of Samuel Knotts v. Tanglewood Energy, Inc., Fern Cove, Inc., Randy Burke, and Randall Key

Secretary of Labor on behalf of Samuel Knotts v. Tanglewood Energy, Inc., et al. (FMSHRC WEVA 94-357-D): Discrimination damages awarded

Apply this to your situation

This order from 1995 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 1995
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 finalized the monetary remedies for a Mine Act discrimination violation, awarding back pay, costs, interest, and a civil penalty. It 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 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

Samuel Knotts had previously been found to have been discharged in violation of section 105(c) of the Mine Act. In this final damages decision, Judge Roy J. Maurer held the respondents jointly and severally liable for $17,120 in net back pay, $508 in costs, and $1,762.80 in interest, and assessed a $1,000 civil penalty payable to the Secretary of Labor. The judge described the case as a close mixed-motive case and ordered payment within 30 days, after which the case would be dismissed.

Decision snapshot

  • Cited provisions: 30 U.S.C. § 815(c); 30 U.S.C. § 820(i)
  • Outcome: Final monetary relief was awarded, including net back pay, costs, interest, and a $1,000 civil penalty.
  • Key point: A Mine Act discrimination violation can result in both employee compensation and a separate civil penalty against the responsible respondents.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

                OFFICE OF A D M INISTRA TIV E LA W JUDGES
                         2 SK YLINE, 10 th FLOOR
                          5203 LEESBURG PIK E
                    FA LLS CHURCH, V IRGINIA 22041



                     September 26, 1995

SECRETARY OF LABOR, : DISCRIMINATION PROCEEDING
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH :
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA), : Docket No. WEVA 94-357-D
ON BEHALF OF SAMUEL KNOTTS, :
Complainant : MORG CD 94-3
v. :
: Coalbank Fork No. 12
TANGLEWOOD ENERGY, INC., :
FERN COVE, INC., :
RANDY BURKE, AND RANDALL KEY, :
Respondents :

                             DECISION

Appearances: James V. Blair, Esq., Office of the Solicitor,
U. S. Department of Labor, Arlington, Virginia,
for the Secretary;
Paul O. Clay, Jr., Esq., Fayetteville,
West Virginia, for Respondents.

Before: Judge Maurer

 On June 20, 1995, I found that the respondents had violated

section 105(c) of the Act by discharging the complainant on
January 28, 1994. I retained jurisdiction pending a final
decision on damages.

 After reconsideration of the entire trial record and the

parties’ post-trial submissions on the issue of damages, I find
the respondents jointly and severally liable for the payment of
damages in the following particulars:

 a. Samuel Knotts is entitled to back pay in the total

amount of $20,760 less $3640 which he received in state
unemployment benefits, or $17,120 net back pay;

 b.   Samuel Knotts is entitled to costs of $508;




 c. Samuel Knotts is entitled to interest on the above two

awards in the amount of $1,762.80; and

 d. The Secretary of Labor is entitled to a civil penalty in

the amount of $1000 for the violation of the Mine Act.

 The Secretary sought a civil penalty of $25,000 in this

case which I find to be clearly unwarranted. This was a
relatively close “mixed-motives” case where the complainant
prevailed by the thinnest of margins. The record also indicates
that the respondents herein are experiencing serious financial
difficulties in the coal mining business including several
hundred thousand dollars in unpaid civil penalties. These
difficulties, combined with the back pay, costs, and interest
being awarded to the complainant herein, lead me to conclude that
$1000 is an appropriate civil penalty pursuant to the criteria
contained in section 110(i) of the Act. I also believe that the
total monetary award to the complainant in this case is itself a
serious disincentive against future violations of the discrimi-
nation provisions of the Mine Act by these respondents.

                          ORDER

 1. Respondents ARE ORDERED TO PAY the complainant the

amounts set forth herein as back pay, costs, and interest awards
within 30 days of this order.

 2. Respondents ARE ORDERED TO PAY the Secretary of Labor

the amount set forth above as a civil penalty within 30 days of
the date of this order.

 3. This Decision and the Decision of June 20, 1995,

together constitute my final disposition of the issues in this
proceeding. Upon payment of the amounts referred to in Paragraph
Nos. 1 and 2, above, this case IS DISMISSED.

                            Roy J. Maurer
                            Administrative Law Judge

Distribution:

James V. Blair, Esq., Office of the Solicitor, U. S. Department
of Labor, 4015 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203 (Certified
Mail)

Paul O. Clay, Jr., Esq., Laurel Creek Road, P. O. Box 746,
Fayetteville, WV 25840 (Certified Mail)

                            2

dcp

  3

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read what one judge decided for one employer in 1995, 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.