Date: April 23, 1992
Case No. 87-ERA-4

In the Matter of

ARLEY BLAKE
    Complainant

    v.

HATFIELD ELECTRIC COMPANY
    Respondent

Michael O'Brien, Esq.
Edward J. Enichen, Esq.
    For the Complainant

Peter DeBruyne, Esq.
    For the Respondent

Charles W. Campbell

Administrative Law Judge

This case arises under § 210, the employment protection provision, of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended (ERA), 42 U.S.C. § 5851 (1982). The complainant is Arley Blake and the respondent is Hatfield Electric Company.

In a Decision and Remand Order dated January 22, 1992, the Deputy Secretary¹ sustained certain of the findings that I had made in a previous recommended decision in this case and remanded the case to me for further proceedings and a supplemental decision and order.

On January 28, 1992, the first of several prehearing telephone conferences was

The parties have now entered a settlement, consisting of a stipulation and release agreement, in which it was agreed, among other things, that the complainant's complaints against the respondent in this matter be dismissed with prejudice and that each party was to bear its own costs and attorneys' fees. The release agreement is signed by the parties and by their counsel.² A breakdown showing distribution of the settlement amount has also been furnished.

I have limited my review of the agreement to determining whether the terms thereof are a fair, adequate and reasonable settlement of the complainant's case against the respondent under the ERA. See Daily v. Portland General Electric Co., 88-ERA-40, Secretary's Order, issued March 1, 1990.

I find the terms of the agreement, within the scope of the Secretary's authority under the ERA, to be fair, adequate and reasonable, and to that extent I recommend its approval.

Accordingly, IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Deputy Secretary approve the settlement to that extent and that the complaint in this case be DISMISSED with prejudice.

       Charles W. Campbell
       Administrative Law Judge

¹ The Secretary had recused herself from participation in this case.

² With respect to provisions of the release agreement dealing with confidentiality, it is noted that the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552 (1982), requires Federal agencies to disclose requested records unless the records are exempt from disclosure under that Act.

In view of the confidentiality provisions, the release agreement and distribution breakdown are not being incorporated into this supplemental recommended decision, but they are being forwarded to the Deputy Secretary together with the record of this case.