Search form

Elevated Fine Lacks Justification, Mine Safety Agency Attorney Concedes

  • May 2, 2016

A government attorney agreed with opposing counsel that the Mine Safety and Health Administration had not justified a proposed 127 percent increase in fines against an Illinois coal operator. The two sides disagreed, however, on the remedy to correct the situation.

The surprising admission came from Sara Johnson, an attorney from the Solicitor of Labor’s office, who was representing MSHA during oral arguments on April 20 in a case before the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission. (Sec’y of Labor v. Am. Coal Co., FMSHRC, LAKE 2011-701, LAKE 2011-881, LAKE 2011-962, LAKE 2012-58, oral arguments, Apr. 20, 2016). MSHA had cited American Coal Co. in 2010 and 2011 for 10 violations at its New Era Mine. Five citations have been settled. The remaining five in dispute addressed allegations that roofs were not shored up sufficiently.

The operator’s attorney told the five-member commission that fines proposed for the five violations should have amounted to about $19,000. Instead, the agency special-assessed them at $43,200, a 127 percent markup, the attorney said, as reported by Bloomberg BNA.

According to the media source, following the company lawyer’s oral argument, Johnson told the commission, “The Secretary of Labor has come to the conclusion that some additional explanation of the penalty amounts is needed.” She also agreed with opposing counsel that MSHA had to prove its allegation that the operator engaged in exceptional misconduct. “The Secretary should carry the burden to justify these penalties,” she stated.

Special assessments generally are reserved for operators who exhibit egregious conduct. American Coal’s attorney disputed that characterization, noting both that the citations were not triggered by accidents and that most of the areas where violations were found were no longer being used. One of the citations was deemed serious, while the other four were listed as moderate.

In a September 20, 2013, decision and order, Administrative Law Judge John Lewis said that the penalties were special-assessed because the violations were among those in MSHA’s Rules to Live By fatality prevention program and “because of Respondent’s past violation history.” However, the operator’s lawyer told the commissioners that New Era Mine is a “massive” mine, and, for that reason, its history of 109 violations over the past two years is a “moderate” number for a mine of that size.

When Commissioner Patrick K. Nakamura asked him when the corporate attorney discovered the company’s history of violations was the trigger for the increased penalty, he answered it was in the Secretary’s closing brief and then in ALJ Lewis’s opinion, Bloomberg BNA reported. The government gave no rationale before those late stages of the litigation.

Johnson said the case should be remanded to MSHA for reassessment. In his rebuttal, American Coal’s attorney disagreed. “The commission should reject the option of remand. They’ve had their chance already,” he said, as quoted by the news service. At least one member of the panel concurred. “Why would you get another chance, a do-over?” Commissioner Michael G. Young asked Johnson. “You muffed it. You had your chance. That’s how I look at it.”

Jackson Lewis attorneys are available to answer inquiries regarding MSHA proposed fines.

©2016 Jackson Lewis P.C. This material is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice nor does it create a client-lawyer relationship between Jackson Lewis and any recipient. Recipients should consult with counsel before taking any actions based on the information contained within this material. This material may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Reproduction of this material in whole or in part is prohibited without the express prior written consent of Jackson Lewis P.C., a law firm with more than 900 attorneys in major cities nationwide serving clients across a wide range of practices and industries. Having built its reputation on providing premier workplace law representation to management, the firm has grown to include leading practices in the areas of government relations, healthcare and sports law. For more information, visit

See AllRelated Articles You May Like

January 23, 2019

U.S. House Committee to Focus on Workforce Protections

January 23, 2019

Signaling a renewed emphasis on workforce protections at the opening of the 116th Congress, the U.S. House of Representatives has changed the name of its committee with jurisdiction over labor matters back to the Committee on Education and Labor. It was called the Committee on Education and the Workforce when Republicans held the... Read More

January 7, 2019

2019: The Year Ahead for Employers

January 7, 2019

Over the past year, state and local governments responded in a variety of ways to national policy, and the midterm elections painted a picture of what’s in store for employers in 2019 and beyond. Jackson Lewis’ annual report outlines upcoming issues, trends, legislation and regulations employers need to be aware of in the coming year... Read More

January 2, 2019

Retail Industry Workplace Law Update – Winter 2019

January 2, 2019

Class Action Trends Report The latest issue of our quarterly report on developments in class action litigation focuses on “joint employers” and covers the following topics: Are you my employer? A patchwork of tests Only in California Prevention pointer Read the Report … OSHA: Certain Safety Incentive Programs, Post... Read More

Related Practices