skip navigational linksDOL Seal - Link to DOL Home Page
Images of lawyers, judges, courthouse, gavel
September 17, 2008         DOL Home > OALJ Home > Whistleblower Collection
USDOL/OALJ Reporter

McQuade v. Oak Ridge Operations Office, USDOE, ARB Nos. 01-093 and 01-094, ALJ Nos. 1997-CAA-7 to 10 (ARB Nov. 28, 2001)


U.S. Department of LaborAdministrative Review Board
200 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20210
DOL
Seal

ARB CASE NOS. 01-093
    01-094
ALJ CASE NOS. 99-CAA-7
    99-CAA-8
    99-CAA-9
    99-CAA-10

DATE: November 28, 2001

In the Matter of:

DENNIS MCQUADE, COMMIE R. BYRUM,
VIRGINIA JOHNSON, and KENNETH WARDEN,
   COMPLAINANTS,

    v.

OAK RIDGE OPERATIONS OFFICE,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY,
    RESPONDENT.

BEFORE: THE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD1

Appearances:
For the Complainants:
   
Loring E. Justice, Esq.,
       Whelchel, May & Associates, Knoxville, Tennessee

For the Respondent:
    Ivan Boatner, Esq.,
       U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, Tennessee

ORDER APPROVING JOINT MOTION TO DISMISS
AND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

   A Department of Labor Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued a recommended decision in this case arising under the employee protection provisions of seven environmental statutes,2 finding in favor of the Complainants (Dennis McQuade, Commie R. Byrum, Virginia Johnson, and Kenneth Warden) on most issues and against Respondent Oak Ridge Operations Office, U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). McQuade v. Oak Ridge Operations Office, ALJ Nos. 1999-CAA-00007, 1999-CAA-00008, 1999-CAA-00009, 1999-CAA-00010 (July 31, 2001). Both the Complainants and the Respondent appealed various aspects of the ALJ's recommended decision to the Administrative Review Board.


[Page 2]

   Complainants and Respondent subsequently entered into a Settlement Agreement intended to resolve the case and filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss and for Approval of Settlement Agreement with the Board. Shortly thereafter, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation amending the settlement agreement "in an effort to make the settlement conform to existing law . . ." Joint Stipulation of the Parties at 1.

   We find the agreement, as amended, to be a fair, adequate and reasonable settlement of the complaint. Accordingly, we APPROVE the agreement and DISMISS the appeals.

   SO ORDERED.

       PAUL GREENBERG
       Chair

       CYNTHIA L. ATTWOOD
       Member

[ENDNOTES]

1 This appeal has been assigned to a panel of two Board members, as authorized by Secretary's Order 2-96. 61 Fed. Reg. 19,978 §5 (May 3, 1996).

2 The Toxic Substances Control Act, 15 U.S.C. §2622 (1994)(TSCA); the Water Pollution Prevention and Control Act, 33 U.S.C. §1367 (1994)(WPCA); the Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S.C. §300j-9(i) (1994)(SDWA); the Solid Waste Disposal Act, 42 U.S.C. §6971 (1994)(SWDA); the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. §7622 (1994)(CAA); the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. §9610 (1994)(CERCLA) and the Energy Reorganization Act, 42 U.S.C. §5851 (1995)(ERA)(collectively, "the environmental statutes").



Phone Numbers