Dated:

Case Nos.: 84-CET-41; 84-CET-42

In the Matter of:

DOUGLAS WOLF AND

KAREN KENDALL

Complainants

v.

TOLEDO AREA CETA CONSORTIUM,

Respondent

    A Decision and Order dated April 26, 1990, was issued in the above-captioned case, finding that Complainants, Douglas Wolf and Karen Kendall, were each discriminated against under the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act Amendments of 1978, Public. L. 95-524 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") and the regulations issued pursuant thereto at 20 C.F.R. §675 et seq. The Act incorporates Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. §2000(d) et seq. That Decision and Order left for a separate proceeding the issue of back pay owed to Complainants.

    After numerous continuances of the back pay proceeding, the final hearing, scheduled for January 22, 1996, was canceled due to the parties reaching a settlement agreement on that date. The settlement was contingent upon approval of its terms by the

Toledo City Council. At the time of the settlement, it was anticipated that the agreement would be submitted to the Toledo City Council for approval within a reasonable time, and the parties assured this court that they would notify the undersigned, in writing, as to the Council's action.

    To date, thirteen months thereafter, nothing has been submitted to this court to indicate that the settlement agreement was even shown to the appropriate persons at the Toledo City Council, let alone that it has been approved or rejected, in whole or in part. On July 22, 1996, the undersigned, by letter, notified the parties of its displeasure in the handling of this matter. Specifically, the undersigned directed the parties attention to Part 29 of the Code of Federal regulations, specifically, to §§18.29(b) and 18.36, and by reference to the pertinent sections of the Rules of Federal Practice before the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.

    In response to the July 22, 1996 letter, Robert L. Clark, counsel for the City of Toledo Ohio, by letter dated July 30, 1996, assured this court that he would meet with the chief of litigation by August 14, 1996 and then "more completely advise [the court] of the status of this case." Attorney Clark went on to ask for this court's patience until August 14, 1996, when he would indicate whether or not an approval was forthcoming. To date, this court has not heard from Attorney Clark or the City of Toledo, as promised.

    On October 31, 1996, Complainants, through council, moved this court to Re-assign Cases for Damage Assessment Hearing. There has been no response filed by Respondent. This court finds that the good faith efforts to resolve this case have been frustrated by the inaction of the City of Toledo, Ohio, Department of Law and the Toledo City Council; therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that Attorney Robert L. Clark, Jr. or another representative at the City of Toledo, Ohio, Department of Law SUBMIT the settlement agreement to the Toledo City Council for approval by April 23, 1997, and thereafter NOTIFY this court of the Toledo City Council's decision by April 30, 1997. It is further ORDERED that if the settlement agreement is not submitted as Ordered above, that this matter shall be set for hearing on the next available docket.

      JOAN HUDDY ROSENZWEIG
      Administrative Law Judge