Eastern Associated Coal Corp.

Plain-English summary

Eastern Associated Coal asked the ALJ to enforce an alleged agreement to vacate a citation, dismiss the case, and postpone the proceeding. Judge Gary Melick found that the company had not identified consideration supporting the alleged promise and that no enforceable settlement agreement could be established on the allegations presented. The judge denied all three motions.

Decision snapshot

• Cited provision: 30 U.S.C. § 815(d)
• Outcome: The motions to enforce the alleged settlement, dismiss the case, and postpone the proceeding were denied.
• Key point: An alleged settlement agreement requires consideration before it can be enforced.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

              OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES
                       2 SKYLINE, Suite 1000
                       5203 LEESBURG PIKE
                  FALLS CHURCH, VIRGINIA 22041

                        March 20, 1997

SECRETARY OF LABOR, : CIVIL PENALTY PROCEEDING
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH :
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA), : Docket No. WEVA 97-52
Petitioner : A.C. No. 46-06448-03534
v. :
: Rocklick Preparation Plant
EASTERN ASSOCIATED COAL CORP.,:
Respondent :

  ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT,
       MOTION TO DISMISS AND MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE

 In its Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement, Respondent

maintains that, during the course of settlement negotiations,
a Conference and Litigation Representative (CLR) for the
Department of Labor, had agreed at a February 20, 1997, meeting,
to vacate Citation No. 4400179. It is represented by Respondent
that the CLR thereafter advised its representative on
February 26, 1997, that he would, in fact, not vacate the
citation and advised such representative that the Department of
Labor=s Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) intended to
litigate the citation before an administrative law judge.
Respondent seeks in the instant motion to "enforce" what it
maintains is a "binding agreement" between the parties to vacate
Citation No. 4400179.

 The validity of a settlement or release agreement is, in the

first instance, governed by the applicable contract law and that
law is ordinarily the law of the place where it is made--in this
case it is alleged to be the State of West Virginia. Williston
on Contracts, Third Edition ' 1792. U.S. v. J.C. Bradford and
Co., 616 F.2d 167, 169 (5th Cir. 1980); Village of Kaktovika v.
Watt, 689 F.2d 222, 230 (D.C. Cir. 1982). In certain cases
involving litigants under a nationwide federal program however,
federal law may control. U.S. v. Kimbell Foods, Inc., 440 U.S.
715, 727 (1979); Mid South Towing v. Harwin, Inc., 733 F.2d 386,
389 (5th Cir. 1984), Fulgance v. J. Ray McDermett & Co., 662 F.2d
1207, 1209 (5th Cir. 1981), Tarmann v. International Salt Co., 12
FMSHRC 1291 (June 1990). Since there is no conflict in the basic
principles of contract law here at issue there is no need to
decide in this preliminary analysis which law is applicable.

Page 2

 Since the Secretary has the unilateral authority to vacate

citations without any settlement motion or agreement, the
question arises as to whether there was, in this case, any legal
consideration to support the alleged promise by the CLR to vacate
the instant citation. Consideration has been defined as some
right, interest, profit or benefit occurring to one party, or
some forebearance, detriment, loss or responsibility given,
suffered or undertaken by another. Cook v. Heck=s Inc., 176
W.Va. 368, 342 S.E.2d 453 (1986); Adkins v. Inco. Alloys Int=l
Inc., 187 W.Va. 219, 417 S.E.2d 910 (1992).

 Respondent does not allege what, if any, consideration

existed. It is, of course, a fundamental principle of the law of
contracts that every promise or agreement, in order to be
enforceable, must have a consideration to support it. 4B M.J.,
Contracts, ' 31. Hamilton v. Harper, 185 W.Va. 51, 404 S.E.2d
540 (1991). Since a settlement agreement is a contract,
consideration is a prerequisite to enforceability of such an
agreement. Hamilton v. Harper, supra.

 Thus even assuming, arguendo, that Respondent=s allegations

herein are true, there is insufficient basis for granting the
motions "to enforce settlement agreement and to dismiss. No
binding "settlement agreement" could have existed as alleged by
Respondent and no further legal analysis is necessary to deny its
Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement and Motion to Dismiss.
The Motions are accordingly denied. The Respondent=s Motion for
Postponement is also denied.

                       Gary Melick
                       Administrative Law Judge
                       703-756-6261

Distribution:

Robert W. Simmons, Conference and Litigation Representative, U.S.
Department of Labor, MSHA, 100 Bluestone Road, Mt. Hope, WV
25880 (Certified Mail)

Caroline A. Henrich, Esq., Eastern Associated Coal Corp., P.O.
Box 1233, Charleston, WV 25324 (Certified Mail) /jf

                            2

Page 3

3