A settlement is a contract, and its construction and enforcement are governed by principles of contract law. United States v. ITT Continental Baking Co., 420 U.S. 223, 238 (1975); Schwartz v. Florida Bd. of Regents, 807 F.2d 901, 905 (11th Cir. 1987); Orr v. Brown & Root, Inc., Case No. 85-ERA-6, Secretary’s Decision and Order issued October 2, 1985, slip op. at 2. A settlement agreement, therefore, must meet the same requisites of formation and enforceability as any other contract. There must be a meeting of the minds on all essential terms, Blum v. Morgan Guaranty Trust Co. of New York, 709 F.2d 1463, 1467 (11th Cir. 1983), and in evaluating the validity of a
[Page 4]
settlement "the court would have to determine . . . that the employee’s consent to the settlement was voluntary and knowing." Alexander v. Gardner - Denver Co., 415 U.S. 36, 52, n.15 (1974). When properly reached, settlement agreements are as binding, final and conclusive of rights as a judgement [sic], Thomas v. State of Louisiana, 534 F.2d 613, 615 (5th Cir. 1976), and a party is bound by such an agreement even though he later realizes the agreement is disadvantageous, Trnka v. Elanco Products Co., 709 F.2d 1223, 1227 (8th Cir. 1983), or he changes his mind. Lyles v. Commercial Lovelace Motor Freight Inc., 684 F.2d 501, 504 (7th Cir. 1982).
The parties have entered into a settlement to resolve the issues raised in this case, which on its face, appears to have been properly reached. The settlement agreement, which bears Tina Chiang’s signature, plainly and unequivocally states that "Respondent [previously identified in the agreement as ‘API Accounting and Computer Consulting, through its owner and President, Tina Chiang’] agrees to pay to the Department of Labor back wages in the total amount of $11,243.52" and $500.00 representing "the total agreed upon amount of the civil money penalty," and that "[u]pon issuance of the Board’s Order in this matter, the U.S. Department of Labor will notify the Department of Homeland Security that API should be denied the opportunity to sponsor any aliens for employment under the H1-B program for a period of two years for its willful failure to pay wages as required." In response to the Board’s Show Cause Order, API has not provided the Board with any grounds for rejecting the settlement to which the parties have agreed. Accordingly, the Board grants the Administrator’s motion for approval of the settlement and dismisses this case.
SO ORDERED.
M. CYNTHIA DOUGLASS
Chief Administrative Appeals Judge
DAVID G. DYE
Administrative Appeals Judge
[ENDNOTES]
1 8 U.S.C.A. §§ 1101-1537 (West 1999 & Supp. 2004). The INA permits employers to employ nonimmigrant alien workers in specialty occupations in the United States. 8 U.S.C.A. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). These workers commonly are referred to as H-1B nonimmigrants. Specialty occupations are occupations that require "theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, and . . . attainment of a bachelor’s or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States." 8 U.S.C.A. § 1184(i)(1). To employ H-1B nonimmigrants, the employer must obtain certification from the United States Department of Labor after filing a Labor Condition Application (LCA). 8 U.S.C.A. § 1182(n). The LCA stipulates the wage levels and working conditions that the employer guarantees for the H-1B nonimmigrants. 8 U.S.C.A. § 1182(n)(1); 20 C.F.R. §§ 655.731, 655.732. After it secures the LCA, the employer petitions for and nonimmigrants receive H-1B visas from the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. See Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135, 2194-96 (Nov. 25, 2002).
2 20 C.F.R. Part 655, Subparts H and I (2007).
3 The Board has jurisdiction to review an ALJ’s decision arising under the INA. 8 U.S.C.A. § 1182(n)(2) and 20 C.F.R. § 655.845. See also Secretary’s Order No. 1-2002, 67 Fed. Reg. 64,272 (Oct. 17, 2002) (delegating to the ARB the Secretary’s authority to review cases arising under, inter alia, the INA).
4 No. 1986-ERA-023, slip op. at 4-5 (sec’y Nov. 14 1989), aff’d in part, rev’d, in part, on other grounds sub nom. macktal v. Sec’y of Labor, 923 F.2d 1150 (5th 1991).
