CASE NO: 91-ERA-45
92- ERA-8

In the Matter of

SANG JOO KIM
    Plaintiff

v.

THE TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY
OF PENNSYLVANIA,
    Respondent

David Kairys, Esq.
    For the Claimant

Alan Berkowitz, Esq.
    For the Respondent

Before Steven E. Halpern
    Administrative Law Judge

   Following protracted negotiations the parties have entered into the appended Settlement Agreement And General Release in resolution of the above captioned matter under the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, 42 U.S.C. Section 5851 (1988).

   In connection with said Agreement I call to the Secretary's, attention following, and append hereto the documents referred to.

   Complainant, having executed the Agreement on April 14, 1992, lodged in the undersigned's office, on April 28, 1992, copies of letters dated April 17, 1992, April 21, 1992 and April 22, 1992, which indicate his discharge of Jules Epstein, Esq. of the firm of Kairys and Rudovsky, as counsel, and his rescission of the settlement agreement as a result of difficulty encountered by him in summer registration for classes.

   By letter dated April 29, 1992, Mr. Epstein explained the nature of the problem, indicated that notwithstanding the aforesaid correspondence the settlement agreement remained in place; and, that while he personally no longer represented complainant David Kairys, Esq. of the firm did represent him.

   On May 4, 1992, there was lodged in the undersigned's office a document executed by claimant May 1, 1992, entitled "Reconfirmation of Settlement". In said document claimant confirmed that he was indeed represented by Mr. Kairys and expressly stated "I reconfirm the settlement in the above matter and hereby withdraw any and all earlier rescissions and renunciations of that settlement which I have made."

   There then follows a paragraph in which complainant records his intent to resolve the original charge through said Settlement Agreement, as well as his intent to preserve his right to bring a future action based on violation of the agreement itself.

   Having concluded that the Settlement Agreement remains in place, I further find it to be fair, adequate and reasonable. I therefore recommend that the Secretary enter an Order approving it, and (item 12 thereof) dismissing the matter with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

       STEVEN F. HALPERN
       Administrative Law Judge

Dated: MAY 13 1992

SEH:vr