U.S. Department of Labor
Administrative Review Board
200 Constitution Ave.
Washington, D.C. 20216
In the Matter of
SHAM MEHTA, ARB CASE NO. 96-123
COMPLAINANT, ALJ CASE NO. 96-TSC-2
v.
DATE: JUN 2 4 1996
ARCTIC SLOPE INSPECTION SERVICES,
RESPONDENT.
BEFORE: THE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD[1]
FINAL ORDER APPROVING SET TLEMENT
AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT
This case arises under the employee protection provisions of
the Toxic Substances Control Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2622 (1988),
the Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1367 (1988),
the Solid Waste Disposal Act, 42 U.S.C. § 6971 (1988) and
the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7622 (1988). The parties
submitted a Settlement
Agreement, Release and Covenant Not to Sue, seeking approval of
the settlement and dismissal of the complaint with prejudice.
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued a decision on June 3,
1996, recommending that the settlement be approved.
The request for approval is based on an agreement entered
into by the parties, therefore, we must review it to determine
whether the terms are a fair, adequate and reasonable settlement
of the complaints. 24 C.F.R. § 24.6. Macktal v. Secretary
ofLabor,, 923 F.2d 1150, 1153-54 (5th Cir. 1991);
Thompson v. U.S.Dep't of Labor, 885 F.2d 551, 556
(9th Cir. 1989); Fuchko andYunker 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
[PAGE 2]
arising under various laws, beyond those enumerated above. See
¶¶ 11, 12 and 13. For the reasons set forth in
Poulos v.Ambassador Fuel Oil Co., Inc., Case No.
86-CAA-1, Sec. Ord., Nov. 2, 1987, 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 the Respondent violated the above enumerated Acts.
Paragraph 8 contains language which provides that the
Complainant shall keep the terms of the Settlement Agreement
confidential. We interpret this language as not preventing
Complainant, either voluntarily or pursuant to an order or
subpoena, from communicating with, or providing information to,
State and Federal government agencies about suspected violations
of law involving the Respondent. See Corder v. Bechtel
EnergyCorp., Sec. Order, Feb. 9, 1994, slip op. at 6-
8 (finding void as contrary to public policy a settlement
agreement provision prohibiting the complainant from
communicating with federal or state agencies concerning possible
violations of law).
The parties' submissions, including the agreement become
part of the record of the case and are subject to the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552 (1988). FOIA
requires Federal agencies to disclose requested records unless
they are exempt from disclosure under the Act.[2] See Debose
v. CarolinaPower and Light Co., Case No. 92-ERA-14,
Ord. Disapproving Settlement and Remanding Case, Feb. 7, 1994,
slip op. at 2-3 and cases there cited.
We find that the agreement, as here construed, is a fair,
adequate and reasonable settlement of the complaint.
Accordingly, we APPROVE the agreement and DISMISS THE
COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE. Paragraph 2.
SO ORDERED.
DAVID A. O'BRIEN
Chair
KARL J. SANDSTROM
Member
JOYCE D. MILLER
Alternate Member
[ENDNOTES]
[PAGE 3]
[1] On April 17, 1996, a Secretary's Order was signed delegating
jurisdiction to issue final agency decisions under these statutes
and pertinent regulations to the newly created Administrative
Review Board. 61 Fed. Reg. 19978 (May 3, 1996)(copy attached).
Secretary's Order 2-96 contains a comprehensive list of the
statutes, executive order and regulations under which the Board
now issues final agency decisions. A copy of the final
procedural revisions to the regulations (61 Fed. Reg. 19982),
implementing this reorganization is also attached.
[2] Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 70.26(b), submitters may
designate specific information as confidential commercial
information to be handled as provided in the regulations. When
FOIA requests are received for such information, the Department
of Labor will notify the submitter promptly, 29 C.F.R. §
70.26(c); the submitter will be given a reasonable amount of time
to state its objections to disclosure, 29 C.F.R. § 70.26(e);
and the submitter will be notified if a decision is made to
disclose the information, 29 C.F.R. § 70.26(f). If the
information is withheld and a suit is filed by the requester to
compel disclosure, the submitter will be notified, 29 C.F.R.
§70.26(h).