DATE: May 20, 1992
CASE NO. 91-ERA-0028
IN THE MATTER OF
FRANKIE GALATA,
JR.,
COMPLAINANT,
v.
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY,
RESSPONDENT .
BEFORE: THE SECRETARY OF LABOR
FINAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Before me for review is the Recommended Order of Dismissal
(R.O. ~ of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) in this arising
under the employee protection provisions of the Energy
Reorganization Act of 1982, as amended, (ERA) 42 U. S . C. 5851
(1988). The ALJ recommended dismissing the case with prejudice as
requested in the parties ' jointly filed Motion for Voluntary
Dismissal.
Neither the ERA nor its implementing regulations at 29 C.F.R.
Part 29 (19gl) provides for voluntary dismissals of complaints
and, therefore, where a complalnant in a case arising under Part
24 has sought a voluntary dismissal, Rule 41(a) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure for the United States District Courts
(Fed. R. Civ. P.) has been applied. SeeCaccavale
v.Northeast Utilities, Case No. 91-ERA-3, Sec. Final
Order of Dismissal, Dec. 18, 1990, slip op. at 1-2; Nolder v.
RaymondKaiser Engineers,_Inc., Case No.
84-ERA-5, Sec. Order, June 28, 1985, slip op. at 6-7.
Complainant's motion, signed by the parties and their
counsel, states that withdrawal of the complaint does not
involve any settlement, and requests dismissal with prejudice. In
this circumstance, Complainant's motion with the Respondentls
written concurrence, constitutes a stipulation of dismissal by the
parties
[PAGE 2]
satisfying the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 41~a)(1)(ii).
SeeBuck v. Tennessee Valley Authority, Case No.
91-ERA-10, Sec. Final Order of Dismissal, Dec. 23, 1991, slip op.
at 1-2; Denayer v. Tennessee Valley Authority, Case No. 91-
ERA-32, Sec. Final Order of Dismiss~l, July 22, 1991, slip op. at
1-2; Nunn v. Duke Power Co., Case No. 84-ERA-27, Sec.
Order, Sept. 29, 1989, slip op. at 3-4.
Accordingly, I accept the ALJ's recommendation and this case
is DISMISSED with prejudice.
SO ORDERED.
LYNN MARTIN
Secretary of Labor
Washington, D. C.