Dismissal Order issued
by Administrative Law
Judge Victor J. Chao on May 23, 1988. on December 6, 1990, I
issued an Order to Submit Settlement Agreement or Other
Clarification (Order), which stated in part:
This case cannot be dismissed unless the Secretary
reviews and approves the parties' settlement, if any.
It is not clear that a settlement exists in this case.
Although the filing of a stipulation might imply that
the instant dispute has been resolved on mutually
agreeable terms culminating in a settlement, it is also
possible that Complainant requested dismissal of the
proceedings without requiring anything in return from
Respondent. If so, this case may be dismissed on the
Stipulation alone.
Order at 2 (citations and footnote omitted).
Pursuant to my order, on December 19, 1990, counsel for
Respondent submitted the following written clarification (copy
also sent to Complainant):
As your order noted, the Administrative Law Judge
recommended dismissal of this case based on the May 19,
1988, stipulation of dismissal which was signed by both
complainant and counsel for respondent. That stipulation
was based on complainant's desire to withdraw the complaint
and to have the case dismissed. There was no settlement of
Complainant's claims. Therefore, as your order also noted,
under Scott v. American Protective Servs., Inc ., No. 89-ERA-
35 [Secretary's Final order of Dismissal], (Apr. 26, 1990),
it is appropriate to dismiss this case pursuant to Rule
41(a)(1)(ii), Fed. R. Civ. P.
Accordingly, this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. See
Scott , slip op. at 2-3.
SO ORDERED.
LYNN MARTIN
Secretary of Labor
Washington, D.C.
[ENDNOTES]
1 See Cooper v. Bechtel Power Corp ., Case No.
88-ERA-2, Sec. Order, September 29, 1989, slip op. at 1.
