ARB CASE NO. 07-117
ALJ CASE NO. 07-STA-032
DATE: October 31, 2007
In the Matter of:
RICK LaROCQUE,
COMPLAINANT,
v.
4-D TRUCKING COMPANY,
RESPONDENT.
BEFORE: THE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD
FINAL DECISION AND ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT
AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE
This case arises
under Section 405, the employee protection provision, of the Surface
Transportation Assistance Act (STAA) of 1982.[1]
On August 30, 2007, the parties submitted a request for approval of their settlement
and dismissal of the complaint to a Department of Labor Administrative Law
Judge (ALJ). The settlement was signed by the Complainant, Rick LaRocque,
and the Respondent, 4-D Trucking, Inc. (4-D). Under the regulations
implementing the STAA, the parties may settle a case at any time after the
filing of objections to the Assistant Secretary’s preliminary findings “if the
participating parties agree to a settlement and such settlement is approved by
the Administrative Review Board . . . or the ALJ.”[2]
The regulations direct the parties to file a copy of the settlement “with the
ALJ or the Administrative Review Board, United States Department of Labor, as
the case may be.”[3]
[Page 2]
When the parties
reached a settlement the case was pending before the ALJ. Therefore, the ALJ
appropriately reviewed the settlement agreement. On September 10, 2007, the
ALJ issued a Recommended Order Approving Settlement and Dismissing Case.
According to the STAA’s implementing regulations, the Administrative Review
Board (ARB or Board) issues the final decision and order in this case.[4]
The Board issued a Notice of Review and Briefing Schedule apprising the
parties of their right to submit briefs supporting or opposing the ALJ’s
recommended decision on September 21, 2007.[5]
On September 25, 4-D wrote a letter to the Board supporting the settlement
agreement. LaRocque did not respond to the Board’s notice. We therefore deem
settlement unopposed under the terms of the Recommended Order Approving
Settlement and Dismissing Case.
Review of the
agreement reveals that it may encompass the settlement of matters under laws
other than the STAA and references cases other than ARB No. 07-117, 07-STA-032,
the case currently before the Board.[6]
The Board’s authority over settlement agreements is limited to the statutes
that are within the Board’s jurisdiction as defined by the applicable
statute. Furthermore, it is limited to cases over which we have
jurisdiction. Therefore, we approve only the terms of the agreement pertaining
to LaRocque’s STAA claim currently before us.[7]
Finally, we
construe paragraph 5(a) as not limiting the authority of the Secretary of Labor
and any Federal court, which shall be governed in all respects by the laws and
regulations of the United States.[8]
[Page 3]
The Board finds
that the settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable, and in the public interest.
Accordingly, with the reservations noted above limiting our approval to the
settlement of LaRocque’s STAA claim, we APPROVE the agreement and DISMISS
the complaint with prejudice.
SO ORDERED.
OLIVER M. TRANSUE
Administrative Appeals Judge
M. CYNTHIA DOUGLASS
Chief Administrative Appeals Judge
[1] 49 U.S.C.A. § 31105 (West 2007). ). The
STAA has been amended since LaRocque filed his complaint. See
Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007, P.L. 110-53,
121 Stat. 266 (Aug. 3, 2007). Even if the amendments were applicable to this
complaint, they would not affect our decision.
[2] 29 C.F.R. § 1978.111(d)(2) (2007).
[3] Id.
[4] 29 C.F.R. § 1978.109(c)(2); Monroe v.
Cumberland Transp. Corp., ARB No. 01-101, ALJ No. 2000-STA-050 (ARB Sept.
26, 2001); Cook v. Shaffer Trucking Inc., ARB No. 01-051, ALJ No. 2000-STA-017
(ARB May 30, 2001).
[5] 29 C.F.R. § 1978.109(c)(2).
[6] Settlement Agreement and Release of All
Claims, para. 2.
[7] Fish v. H & R Transfer, ARB No.
01-071, ALJ No. 2000-STA-056, slip op. at 2 (ARB Apr. 30, 2003).
[8] Phillips v. Citizens’ Ass’n for Sound
Energy, 1991-ERA-025, slip op. at 2 (Sec’y Nov. 4, 1991).
