Secretary of Labor obo Kenneth R. Hawkins v. New Point Stone Company

Plain-English summary

Kenneth Hawkins alleged that New Point Stone fired him after he refused to sign a training document that he believed was inaccurate and called MSHA. The Secretary found that his discrimination complaint was not frivolously brought and applied for temporary reinstatement. New Point Stone waived its right to a temporary-reinstatement hearing. Judge Thomas McCarthy found non-frivolous issues concerning protected activity, termination, and the connection between them, and ordered Hawkins immediately returned to his former or an equivalent position while the discrimination case continued.

Decision snapshot

• Cited authority: 30 U.S.C. § 815(c)(1)-(2); 30 C.F.R. § 2700.45
• Outcome: Kenneth Hawkins was ordered immediately temporarily reinstated.
• Key point: Allegations that a miner was fired while refusing to falsify training records and contacting MSHA met the low non-frivolous standard for interim reinstatement.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

FEDERAL MINE
SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

OFFICE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES

1331 PENNSYLVANIA
AVE., N.W., SUITE 520N

WASHINGTON, DC
20004-1710

TELEPHONE:
202-434-9900 / FAX: 202-434-9949

December 31, 2020

SECRETARY
OF LABOR

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR obo

KENNETH R. HAWKINS,

Complainant

v.

NEW
POINT STONE COMPANY,

Respondent

TEMPORARY
REINSTATEMENT

PROCEEDING

Docket
No. LAKE 2021-0036

MSHA
Case No. VINC-CD-2021-01

Mine:
St. Paul Stone

Mine
ID: 12-00115

ORDER GRANTING
TEMPORARY REINSTATEMENT

Before:                        Judge
McCarthy

This matter is before the undersigned on the
Secretary of Labor’s Application for Temporary Reinstatement filed on behalf of
miner Kenneth R. Hawkins pursuant to section 105(c) of the Federal Mine Safety
and Health Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C. § 801, et seq., as amended (“Mine Act”), and
29 C.F.R. § 2700.45. The Secretary seeks an order temporarily reinstating Hawkins
to his former position with New Point Stone Company pending the investigation and
disposition of a Discrimination Complaint under section 105(c) of the Act.

On
October 19, 2020, Hawkins filed a Discrimination Complaint with MSHA. The
Secretary found that the Complaint was not frivolously brought and filed an
Application for Temporary Reinstatement (“Application”) on December 21, 2020.

In
an email on December 30, 2020, the Respondent indicated that it was waiving its
right to a temporary reinstatement hearing and its intention, following my
order of temporary reinstatement, to file a motion to toll the temporary
reinstatement order supported by documentation and affidavits.

I. Statement of the Case

The Application alleges the following facts. Hawkins
was a miner working at the St. Paul Stone quarry mine for New Point Stone
Company, a mine operator within the meaning of the Mine Act. Application at
1-2, ¶¶ 3-5. On September 15, 2020, Hawkins was involved in a haul truck
accident at the mine. Id. at 2, ¶ 6. On October 8, 2020, Dan Wanstrath,
the mine owner and plant manager, held a meeting where he read a site-specific,
hazard-training document and then asked the miners, including Hawkins, to sign
a training form. Hawkins refused, believing that signing the document “was not
right” and that he should have received the training prior to the accident. Wanstrath
then informed Hawkins that he no longer had a job for Hawkins. Id.

Hawkins then started to leave the room and, when
questioned by Wanstrath, stated that he was going to call MSHA. Wanstrath then put
his hands on Hawkins and asked him to “[s]it down and we will talk about it.” Id.
at 3, ¶ 6. After another miner told Hawkins that he had a right to call MSHA,
Wanstrath backed away and Hawkins left the room. Id.

Hawkins returned to the room after calling MSHA. Wanstrath
then told Hawkins that Hawkins had already received the required training. Wanstrath
then produced a training document dated July 20, 2020. The training document
was not initialed by Hawkins, and Hawkins insisted that he had never had that
training. Wanstrath told Hawkins to get in the truck and he would drive Hawkins
around mine property to explain the training and then Hawkins could sign the
document dated July 20, 2020. Hawkins again refused, stating that he was not
going to “cover [Wanstrath’s] ass” by falsifying a document. Wanstrath then
fired Hawkins, stating, “[t]hen, like I said earlier, I have no work for you.” Id.

Based on the above allegations, the
Application states that Hawkins engaged in protected activity when he refused
to sign the training document, believing that Wanstrath was asking him to
falsify a document, and when he called MSHA. Id. at 2, ¶ 6. As a remedy,
the Application requests

that an Order of Temporary Reinstatement
be issued directing the Respondent to reinstate [Hawkins] to the position he
held immediately prior to his termination or to a similar position at the same
rate of pay and with the same or equivalent duties assigned to him.

Id. at 3, ¶ 7.

II. Legal Principles
and Analysis

Section 105(c)(2) of the Mine Act
provides that, as to claims of discrimination, “if the Secretary finds that
such complaint was not frivolously brought, the Commission, on an expedited
basis upon application of the Secretary, shall order the immediate
reinstatement of the miner pending final order on the complaint.” When no
hearing is requested, the determination that the complaint is not frivolously
brought is based on the contents of the Secretary’s application. 29 C.F.R.
2700.45(c) (2017).

The elements of a discrimination claim
provide a useful framework to assess whether an allegation is frivolous. Sec’y
of Labor on behalf of Williamson v. CAM Mining, LLC , 31 FMSHRC 1085,
1088 (Oct. 2009). To establish a prima facie case of discrimination under section
105(c) of the Act, a complainant must establish (1) that he or she engaged in
protected activity and (2) that the adverse action complained of was motivated
in any part by that activity. Sec’y of Labor on behalf of Pasula v.
Consolidation Coal Co. , 2 FMSHRC 2786 (Oct. 1980), rev’d on other
grounds , 663 F.2d 1211 (3d Cir. 1981); Sec’y of Labor on behalf of
Robinette v. United Castle Coal Co. , 3 FMSHRC 803 (Apr. 1981).

For a temporary reinstatement proceeding,
the Secretary need not prove a causal nexus exists between the protected
activity and the adverse action; the Secretary need only demonstrate that there
is a non-frivolous issue as to the causal nexus. As explained by Judge Manning,
a Commission judge should determine the issue of causal nexus was not
frivolously brought if “evidence was presented to show that the adverse actions
could have been motivated at least in part by the protected activity.” Sec’y
of Labor on behalf of Bradley v. Climax Molybdenum Co. , 34 FMSHRC 2808,
2821 (Oct. 2012) (ALJ). The Commission has recognized that direct evidence of
motivation is rarely encountered and that the only available evidence is often
indirect. See, e.g., Sec’y of Labor on behalf of Chacon v. Phelps Dodge
Corp. , 3 FMSHRC 2508, 2510 (Nov. 1981)., rev’d on other grounds , 709
F.2d 86 (D.C. Cir. 1983). The Commission has identified the following indicia
of discriminatory intent to establish a nexus between the protected activity
and the alleged discrimination: (1) hostility or animus toward the protected
activity, (2) knowledge of the protected activity, and (3) coincidence in time
between the protected activity and adverse action. Id .

The Secretary has sufficiently
demonstrated that the Application was not frivolously brought as to the issue
of protected activity. The Application alleges that Hawkins refused to falsity
a training document and contacted MSHA. Application at 2, ¶ 6. Section 105(c)
of the Act, protects miners against retaliation for refusing to violate the Act
or any safety or health regulation promulgated under it, including the refusal
to falsify training documents.

Additionally, the Application alleges
that Hawkins engaged in protected activity when he contacted MSHA. 30 U.S.C.
§ 815(c)(1) (“[n]o person shall discharge or in any other manner discriminate
against…because such miner…has filed or made a complaint under or relating to
this Act, including a complaint notifying the operator or the operator’s
agent…of an alleged danger or safety or health violation”).

The Secretary has sufficiently
demonstrated that the Application was not frivolously brought as to the issue
of adverse action. The Application alleges that New Point Stone Company
terminated Hawkins on October 8, 2020. Application at 3, ¶ 6.

Furthermore, the Secretary has also
sufficiently demonstrated that the Application was not frivolously brought as
to the nexus between the protected activity and the adverse action. The termination
occurred on the same date and amid Hawkin’s repeated refusals to falsify
training documents—a protected activity that appears to be based on reasonable,
good-faith belief.

III. Order

For the foregoing reasons, Respondent New
Point Stone Company is ORDERED to immediately reinstate Kenneth R.
Hawkins to the position he held immediately prior to his termination on or
about October 8, 2020, or to a substantially equivalent position at the same
rate of pay, with the same benefits, and with the same or equivalent duties
assigned to him.

This Order of Temporary Reinstatement is
not open-ended. It will end upon final order on the underlying discrimination
complaint as set forth in section 105(c)(2) of the Act. 30 U.S.C. §
815(c)(2). Therefore, the Secretary must promptly determine whether or not he
will file a complaint with the Commission under section 105(c)(2) of the Act
and so advise Hawkins, the Respondent, and this administrative tribunal.

/s/
Thomas P. McCarthy

Thomas
P. McCarthy

Administrative
Law Judge

Distribution:

Barbara M. Villalobos

U.S. Department of Labor

Office of the Solicitor

230 S. Dearborn St., Room 844

Chicago, IL 60604

[email protected]

[email protected]

Tony Oppegard

P.O. Box 22446

Lexington, KY 40522

[email protected]

Wes Addington

Appalachian Citizens’ Law Center

317 Main Street

Whitesburg, KY 41858

[email protected]

Michael Peelish, Esq.

Law Office of Adele L. Abrams, P.C.

4740 Corridor Place, Suite D

Beltsville, MD 20705

[email protected]

Sarah Ghiz Korwan, Esq.

Law Office of Adele L. Abrams, P.C.

1035 Bridge Road

Charleston, WV 25314

[email protected]