The parties have agreed to settle Mancuso's STAA claim. Accordingly, with the reservations noted above, we APPROVE the agreement and DISMISS the complaint with prejudice.
SO ORDERED.
M. CYNTHIA DOUGLASS
Chief Administrative Appeals Judge
DAVID G. DYE
Administrative Appeals Judge
[ENDNOTES]
1 49 U.S.C.A. § 31105 (West 2007).
2 29 C.F.R. Part 1978 (2006).
3 29 C.F.R. § 1978.111(d)(2).
4 See id.
4 See, e.g., para. 3 of the Agreement.
5 Fish v. H & R Transfer, ARB No. 01-071, ALJ No. 00-STA-56, slip op. at 2 (ARB Apr. 30, 2003).
6 Ruud v. Westinghouse Hanford Co., ARB No. 96-087, ALJ No. 1988-ERA-33, slip op. at 6 (ARB Nov. 10, 1997); Conn. Light & Power Co. v. Sec'y, U.S. Dep't of Labor, 85 F.3d 89, 95-96 (2d Cir. 1996) (employer engaged in unlawful discrimination by restricting complainant's ability to provide regulatory agencies with information; improper "gag" provision constituted adverse employment action).
7 Phillips v. Citizens Ass'n for Sound Energy, 1991-ERA-25, slip op. at 2 (Sec'y Nov. 4, 1991).