DATE:  February 22, 1994
CASE NOS. 89-ERA-19 and 92-ERA-57 [1] 


IN THE MATTER OF

SARAH THOMAS,

          COMPLAINANT,

     v.

ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY,

          RESPONDENT. [2] 


BEFORE:  THE SECRETARY OF LABOR


                     FINAL ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT
                         AND DISMISSING COMPLAINTS

     These cases arise under the employee protection provision of
the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (ERA), as amended, 42
U.S.C. § 5851 (1988).  The parties submitted a Settlement
Agreement and a General Release (jointly referred to as
"agreement") and asked the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) to
approve the agreement and dismiss the complaints with prejudice. 
The ALJ recommends approval and dismissal.
     In Case No. 89-ERA-19, the Secretary issued a Decision and
Order on September 17, 1993, finding that Respondent violated the
ERA.  In Case No. 92-ERA-57, the ALJ issued on November 10, 1992,
a Recommended Decision and Order Granting Complainant's Motion
for Dismissal Without Prejudice.  Complainant's October 22, 1993,
complaint is pending before the Wage and Hour Administrator.
     The agreement appears to encompass the settlement of matters
arising under various laws, only one of which is the ERA.  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, I have limited my review of the agreement to determining
whether its terms are a fair, adequate and reasonable settlement
of 
[PAGE 2]
Complainant's allegations that Respondent violated the ERA.
     Paragraph 1.4 provides that any prior decisions in these
cases "cannot be used, referenced, applied, or relied upon in 
any respect in any subsequent action, proceeding, claim, or
litigation of any type involving either of the parties hereto." 
The paragraph is interpreted to permit the Secretary and
Administrative Law Judges to rely on such prior decisions in any 
cases in which neither Complainant nor Respondent are parties.
     Consistent with Paragraph 3 of the agreement, which governs
confidentiality, and the December 30, 1993, letter from
Respondent's counsel (attached), a copy of Respondent's request
for confidential treatment will be placed in the record. 
Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 70.26, Respondent seeks notification
of any request under the Freedom of Information Act involving the
settlement, so that it may preserve its rights.  Paragraph 3.3
provides that "[n]othing in this Agreement shall be construed to
restrict the disclosure of the terms of this Agreement where
required by law."
     As noted in Paragraph 7.1 concerning the law which governs
the agreement, nothing in it "shall be construed to limit or
restrict the authority of the U.S. Secretary of Labor or any
federal court pursuant to federal law. . . ."  
     I find that the agreement, as here construed, is a fair,
adequate, and reasonable settlement of the complaints. 
Accordingly, I approve the agreement and DISMISS with prejudice
the complaints in Nos. 89-ERA-19 and 92-ERA-57.  A copy of this
Order shall be sent to the Wage and Hour Administrator for
appropriate action on Complainant's October 22, 1993 complaint.
     SO ORDERED.



                              ROBERT B. REICH
                              Secretary of Labor

Washington, D.C.



[ENDNOTES]
           
[1]  Complainant also sought dismissal of her October 22, 1993,
complaint against Respondent.  A copy of this Order shall be sent
to the Wage and Hour Administrator for appropriate action on that
complaint.

[2]  Case No. 92-ERA-57 originally was captioned "Sarah C. Thomas
v. Arizona Public Service Company/Palo Verde Nuclear Generating
Station."