In cases arising under the ERA, settlement agreements must be reviewed by
the Secretary for a determination of whether the agreement is fair, adequate and reasonable.
Hoffman v. Fuel Economy Contracting, 87-ERA-33 (Sec'y Aug. 4, 1989); Milewski
v. Kansas Gas & Electric Co., 85-ERA-21 (Sec'y Jan. 15, 1988)(order), aff'd on
recon, (Sec'y Apr. 23, 1990)(order).
It appears that the agreement may encompass the settlement of
matters arising under various laws, only one of which is the ERA. See ¶ E.1.
Review of the agreement by the Secretary, however, is limited to determining whether its terms
are a fair, adequate and reasonable settlement of the Complainant's allegations the Respondent
violated the ERA. Poulos v. Ambassador Fuel Oil Co., Inc. , 86-CAA-1, slip op. at 2
(Sec'y Nov. 2, 1987).
I find that the agreement provides for a fair, adequate and
reasonable settlement of Complainant's ERA complaint. I note that Paragraph D. specifies the
amount designated for attorney's fees, as required by Guity v. Tennessee Valley
Authority , 90-ERA-10 (ARB Aug. 28, 1996), and that Paragraph O. provides the
certification, as required by Biddy v. Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. , 95-TSC-7, slip op. at
3 (ARB Dec. 3, 1996), that there are no other agreements for any other claims arising from the
same factual circumstances forming the basis of the federal claim. Accordingly, I recommend
that the Administrative Review Board APPROVE the agreement and DISMISS THE
COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE.
JOHN M. VITTONE
JMV/trs
[ENDNOTES]
1
