Big Ridge, Inc. v. Federal Mine Safety & Health Review Commission
715 F.3d 631
7th Cir.2013Background
- MSHA issued 2010 audits demanding access to medical, payroll, and personnel records to verify injury and illness reporting; thirty-nine mines were targeted.
- Two Peabody-operated mines initially complied with Form 7000-1/7000-2 and headcount data but refused to disclose medical and payroll records; MSHA issued citations and penalties.
- Administrative proceedings (ALJ and Commission) upheld the record demands as within MSHA's authority under 813(a)/(h) and Part 50.41.
- Coalition of mine workers intervened raising privacy and Fourth Amendment challenges to the record demands.
- Petitioners seek judicial review arguing lack of statutory/regulatory authority, improper rulemaking, Fourth Amendment/privacy violations, Fifth Amendment due process concerns, and conflicts with other laws.
- Court holds MSHA acted within its statutory and constitutional powers, upholding the Commission's decision and denying petitions for review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authority to demand non-required records | MSHA lacks authority to demand non-required records | Section 50.41 and 813(a)/(h) authorize review of records 'relevant and necessary' to verify reporting | MSHA authorized to demand; 50.41 valid |
| Chevron analysis applicability | Chevron deference should not apply due to agency inconsistency | Chevron applies; Secretary's interpretation reasonable | Chevron analysis supports agency's interpretation |
| Fourth Amendment – operators' privacy | Document demands violate Fourth Amendment privacy of medical records | Demands are administrative subpoenas; limited, confidential, and necessary | No Fourth Amendment violation; administrative subpoena-like 50.41 valid |
| Due process and daily penalties | Daily penalties before judicial review violate due process | Penalty scheme includes review opportunities and discretion; not automatic | No due process violation; scheme constitutionally permissible |
| Conflict with ADA/FMLA/other laws | Conflicts with confidentiality requirements of ADA/FMLA and state/privacy laws | MSHA authority consistent with Mine Safety Act; no preemption or conflict | No conflict; preemption and privacy protections addressed |
Key Cases Cited
- Donovan v. Dewey, 452 U.S. 594 (U.S. 1981) (MSHA warrantless inspections permitted; informs constitutional framework)
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (U.S. 1984) (two-step framework for reviewing agency interpretations)
- New York v. Burger, 482 U.S. 691 (U.S. 1987) (pervasively regulated industries; warrants not always required)
- Sewell Coal Co. v. Secretary of Labor, 1 FMSHRC 864 (FMSHRC 1979) (older view distinguishing records inspection scope; not controlling authority here)
- Thunder Basin Coal Co. v. Reich, 510 U.S. 200 (U.S. 1994) (explanation of due process in Mine Safety Act penalties framework)
- National Cable & Telecommunications Ass'n v. Brand X Internet Services, 545 U.S. 967 (U.S. 2005) (considers agency interpretations and Chevron deference applicability)
- Barling v. Reed, Not applicable (Not applicable) (This entry intentionally left blank to reflect requirement of official reporters only)