ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT
This case arises under the employee protection provision of the Energy Reorganization
Act of 1974 (ERA), as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 5851 (1988 and Supp. IV 1992). The
Complainant filed a second complaint against Respondent, docketed as Case No. 95-ERA-34.
Although the cases were not consolidated in the matter before us, the parties are desirous that the
settlement be considered in that case as well. For the sake of administrative economy we will do
so.
The parties have requested dismissal of the complaint(s) with prejudice
and
submitted additional information as required by the Board's Order dated August 28, 1996. On
August 15, 1996, the presiding Administrative Law Judge recommended that the settlement be
approved and the complaint(s) dismissed based on the parties' Joint Motion for Dismissal and a
Memorandum of Understanding and Agreement in support of such request.
Since the request for approval of the settlement is based on an agreement
entered into by the parties, we must review it to determine whether the terms are a fair, adequate
and reasonable settlement of the complaint. 42 U.S.C. § 5851(b)(2)(A)(1988).
Macktal v. Secretary of Labor , 923 F.2d 1150, 1153-54 (5th Cir. 1991); Fuchko and
Yunker v. Georgia Power Co., Case Nos. 89-ERA-9, 89-ERA-10, Sec. Order, Mar. 23,
1989, slip op. at 1-2.
The agreement appears to encompass the settlement of matters arising
under various laws, only one of which is the ERA. See Paragraphs 3 and 4. For the
reasons set forth in slip op. at 2, we have limited our review of the agreement to determining
whether its terms are a fair, adequate and reasonable settlement of the Complainant's allegations
that Respondent violated the ERA.
We find that the agreement, as here construed, is a fair, adequate and
reasonable settlement of the complaint(s). Accordingly, we APPROVE the agreement and
DISMISS THE COMPLAINT(S) WITH PREJUDICE.
SO ORDERED.
DAVID A. O'BRIEN
Chair
KARL J. SANDSTROM
Member
JOYCE D. MILLER
Alternate
Member
[ENDNOTES]
1
