00-1307 Barnhart v. Sigmon Coal Co., Inc., et al.

Listen to this article

Because the Act is explicit as to who may be assigned liability for beneficiaries and neither the “related persons” provision nor any other provision states that successors in interest to these signatory operators may be assigned liability, the Act’s plain language necessarily precludes the Commissioner from assigning the disputed miners to Jericol. Where, as here, the statutory language is unambiguous, the inquiry ceases. See, e.g., United States v. Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc., 489 U.S. 235, 240, 109 S.Ct. 1026, 103 L.Ed.2d 290. Since the retirees at issue were Shackelford employees, the “signatory operator” that sold its assets to Jericol (then-Irdell) in 1973, the Commissioner can only assign the beneficiaries to Jericol if it is a “related person” to Shackleford under § 9706(a). Section 9701(c)(2) states that “[a] person shall be considered to be a related person to a signatory operator if that person is-” “(i) a member of the controlled group of corporations … which includes [the] signatory operator”; “(ii) a trade or business … under common control … with such signatory operator”; or “(iii) any other person who [has] a partnership interest or joint venture with a signatory operator” with some exceptions. A related person also includes “a successor in interest of any person described in clause (i), (ii), or (iii).” There is no contention that Jericol was ever a member of a controlled group of corporations including Shackleford, that it was ever a business under common control with Shackleford, or that it ever had a partnership interest or engaged in a joint venture with Shackleford. Therefore, liability for these beneficiaries may attach to Jericol only if it is a successor in interest to an entity described in §§ 9701(c)(2)(A)(i)-(iii). Because Jericol is a successor in interest only to Shackleford, Jericol will be liable only if a signatory operator itself, here Shackleford, falls within one of these categories. None of the three categories, however, includes the signatory operator itself. Nor should such inclusion be inferred, since it is a general principle of statutory construction that when one statutory section includes particular language that is omitted in another section of the same Act, it is presumed that Congress acted intentionally and purposely. E.g., Russello v. United States, 464 U.S. 16, 23, 104 S.Ct. 296, 78 L.Ed.2d 17. Where Congress wanted to provide for successor liability in the Coal Act, it did so explicitly, as demonstrated by §§ 9706(b)(2) and 9711(g)(1). If Congress had meant to make a preenactment successor in interest like Jericol liable, it could have done so clearly and explicitly.

Local effect:

The issue has not previously been considered by the Seventh Circuit, although the decision in Davon, Inc. v. Shalala, 75 F.3d 1114 (7th Cir. 1996) assumed without deciding that the Act did authorize such liability.

Thomas, J.; Stevens, J., dissenting.