Northshore Mining Company v. Secretary of Labor, No. 21-1334 (8th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Northshore Mining Company filed a petition for review of a Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) order stating that Northshore had failed to maintain the walkway in good condition after an employee was injured in 2016. The order attributed the violation to Northshore’s reckless disregard of and unwarrantable failure to comply with the walkway-maintenance mandatory standard. In addition, MSHA designated the violation as “flagrant.” Commission’s conclusions on reckless.
The Secretary cross-petitioned for review of the Commission’s conclusions on the flagrant designation and individual liability. The Eighth Circuit denied Northshore’s petition on the issue of the company's reckless disregard and unwarrantable failure and granted the Secretary’s cross-petition for review of the Commission’s conclusions on the flagrant designation and individual liability.
Court Description: [Smith, Chief Judge, Author, with Benton and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Petition for Review -Federal Mine Safety & Health Administration. The MSHA issued an order after a worker was injured on a mine walkway, finding Northshore had failed to maintain the walkway in a good condition and that its violation was flagrant; based on the findings, the Secretary sought the imposition of civil penalties against Northshore and its supervisors. An ALJ found the violation was not flagrant but upheld the findings of reckless disregard and unwarrantable failure and individual supervisor liability. On appeal to the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission, the Commission upheld the findings of reckless disregard and unwarrantable failure but reversed the findings of supervisor liability. Northshore petitions for review of the findings on reckless disregard and unwarrantable failure, while the Secretary cross-petitions on the issues of flagrant disregard and supervisor liability. Held: Northshore's petition for review of the Commission's conclusions on reckless disregard and unwarrantable failure is denied, while the Secretary's cross-petition for review of the Commission's conclusions on the flagrant designation and supervisor liability is granted. The Secretary's definition of reckless is reasonable and aligns with the MINER Act's purposes, and the court will defer to the Secretary's litigation position on the meaning of recklessness; substantial evidence supports the determination that Northshore acted recklessly, that it knew of the violation of a mandatory standard, and that the violation was reasonably expected to cause death or serious injury; as a result, substantial evidence did not support the ALJ's deletion of the flagrant designation; on this record, the individual supervisors authorized, ordered or carried out the instant violation and they were individually responsible for the violation.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.