The company KCCC operates coal mines in West Virginia. The US Department of Labor charged the no.1 coal mine of KCCC for “significant and substantial” (S&S) violations of the FMSH Act. There was a potential danger of explosion due to improper sealing of electronic equipment. The violation of the mine act designates that it ‘could significantly and substantially affect and cause safety and health threats. The argument of secretary that ‘Could’ constitutes the mere possibility of threat is hazardous if the violation existed. The company, KCCC filed a lawsuit against the secretary of the Department of Labor to evident the violation. To find: The deference in the interpretation of the statute by the court.

Question

The Case of Baylor University Patty Crawford, the Title IX coordinator at Baylor from November 2014 to October 2016, was hired to coordinate the institution’s Title IX compliance when this case took place (Baylor University, n.d.). Like all Title IX coordinators, Crawford’s role was a comprehensive administrative role that bears the responsibility of ensuring that campuses prevent and respond to gender discrimination, including sexual misconduct. This role spans duties related to grievance process management, victim assistance, organization management, and climate management (Lake, 2017). In addition to managing the institution’s compliance, Title IX coordinators also craft comprehensive training and awareness strategies to ensure students, employees, and other campus stakeholders are aware of how to identify and report sexual misconduct and what resources are available to students regardless of whether they choose to proceed with the grievance process. Crawford alleged that she was…

Answer 1

Question

Chapter 23, Problem 8BCP

Summary Introduction

Case summary: The company KCCC operates coal mines in West Virginia. The US Department of Labor charged the no.1 coal mine of KCCC for “significant and substantial” (S&S) violations of the FMSH Act. There was a potential danger of explosion due to improper sealing of electronic equipment. The violation of the mine act designates that it ‘could significantly and substantially affect and cause safety and health threats. The argument of secretary that ‘Could’ constitutes the mere possibility of threat is hazardous if the violation existed. The company, KCCC filed a lawsuit against the secretary of the Department of Labor to evident the violation.

To find: The deference in the interpretation of the statute by the court.

Expert Solution & Answer

Trending nowThis is a popular solution!

See solution

Check out sample textbook solution

Students have asked these similar questions

The Case of Baylor University Patty Crawford, the Title IX coordinator at Baylor from November 2014 to October 2016, was hired to coordinate the institution’s Title IX compliance when this case took place (Baylor University, n.d.). Like all Title IX coordinators, Crawford’s role was a comprehensive administrative role that bears the responsibility of ensuring that campuses prevent and respond to gender discrimination, including sexual misconduct. This role spans duties related to grievance process management, victim assistance, organization management, and climate management (Lake, 2017). In addition to managing the institution’s compliance, Title IX coordinators also craft comprehensive training and awareness strategies to ensure students, employees, and other campus stakeholders are aware of how to identify and report sexual misconduct and what resources are available to students regardless of whether they choose to proceed with the grievance process. Crawford alleged that she was…

Which of the following presides over formal agency adjudications at the federal level?An administrative law judgeA federal magistrateA federal district judgeA judicial commissione

Davis v. HSBC Bank Nevada N.A., 691 F.3d 1152 (9th Cir. 2012) A Question of Ethics—Consumer Rights. Best Buy, a national electronics retailer, offered a credit card that allowed users to earn “reward points” that could be redeemed for discounts on Best Buy goods. After reading a newspaper advertisement for the card, Gary Davis applied for, and was given, a credit card. As part of the application process, he visited a Web page containing Frequently Asked Questions as well as terms and conditions for the card. He clicked on a button affirming that he understood the terms and conditions. When Davis received his card, it came with seven brochures about the card and the reward point program. As he read the brochures, he discovered that a $59 annual fee would be charged for the card. Davis went back to the Web pages he had visited and found a statement that the card “may” have an annual fee. Davis sued, claiming that the company did not adequately disclose the fee. Applying what you learned…