Cloutier, Jr., v. Northeast Freight Systems, 2000-STA-6 (ALJ Mar. 14, 2000)

U.S. Department of Labor

Office of Administrative Law Judges Seven Parkway Center - Room 290 Pittsburgh, PA 15220 (412) 644-5754 (412) 644-5005 (FAX)

DATE ISSUED: March 14, 2000

CASE NO.: 2000-STA-6

In the Matter of

VALMORE CLOUTIER, JR.,
    Complainant

    v.

NORTHEAST FREIGHT SYSTEMS,
    Respondent

    This proceeding arises under Section 31105 of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA) of 1982 (49 U.S.C. §§ 31101) and the regulations promulgated thereunder at 29 C.F.R. Part 1978 (1989). The parties, on March 13, 2000, filed a Settlement Agreement ("Agreement") in accordance with 29 C.F.R. §§ 1978.111(d)(2). The Agreement resolves the controversy arising from the complaint of Valmore Cloutier, Jr. under the statute. The Settlement Agreement is signed by the complainant and the employer.

    The Settlement Agreement provides that complainant releases respondent from claims arising under the Surface Transportation Act as well as under various other laws. This review is limited to whether the terms of the settlement are a fair, adequate and reasonable settlement of complainant's allegations that respondent violated the STAA. Kidd v. Sharron Motor Lines, Inc., 87-STA-2 (Sec'y July 30, 1987); Poulos v. Ambassador Fuel Oil Co., Case No. 86-CAA-1, Sec. Ord., Nov. 2, 1987, slip op. at 2. As was stated in Poulos v. Ambassador Fuel Oil Co., Inc., Case No. 86-CAA-1, Sec. Order, (Nov. 2, 1987):

The Secretary's authority over the settlement agreement is limited to such statutes as are within [the Secretary's] jurisdiction and is defined by the applicable statute. See Aurich v. Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., Case No. 86-CAA-2, Secretary's Order Approving Settlement, issued July 29, 1987; Chase v. Buncombe County, N.C., Case No. 85-SWD-4, Secretary's Order on Remand, issued November 3, 1986.

    I have therefore limited my review of this Agreement to determining whether the terms thereof are a fair, adequate and reasonable settlement of Mr. Cloutier's allegation that respondent had violated the STAA.

    The Agreement provides that the complainant has not instituted a civil action, under the STAA, in a forum other than the U.S. Department of Labor, for relief permitted under §§ 31105 of the Act as a result of the company's actions in this case and that if he does he agrees he will not be entitled to any relief. That paragraph could possibly be construed as a waiver by complainant of a cause of action potentially arising in the future. The provision must be interpreted as limited to the right to sue in the future on claims or causes of action arising out of facts or any set of facts occurring before the date of the agreement. Bittner v. Fuel Economy Contracting Co., Case No. 88-ERA-22, Sec. Ord. Approving Settlement Agreement and Dismissing Complaint (June 28, 1990), Slip op. at 2.

    Under the STAA and implementing regulations, a proceeding may be terminated on the basis of a settlement provided either the Secretary or the Administrative Law Judge approves the agreement. 49 U.S.C. app. §§ 2305(c)(2)(A); 29 C.F.R. §§ 1978.111(d)(2). The parties must submit for review an entire agreement to which each party has consented. Tankersley v. Triple Crown Services, Inc. 92- STA-8 (Sec'y Feb. 18, 1993). The agreement must be reviewed to determine whether the terms are a fair, adequate and reasonable settlement of the complaint. Macktal v. Secretary of Labor, 923 F.2d 1150 (5th Cir. 1991); Thompson v. U.S. Department of Labor, 885 F.2d 551 (9th Cir. 1989); Fuchko and Yunker v. Georgia Power Co., Case Nos. 89-ERA-9, 89-ERA-10, Sec'y Ord. Mar. 23, 1989, slip op. at 1-2. This Order approving the settlement is final since all parties have joined in the Agreement. Swischer v. Gerber Childrenswear, Inc., 93-STA-1 (Sec-y Jan. 4, 1993).

    I find the overall settlement terms to be reasonable but some clarification is necessary. The Agreement contains a confidentiality provision limiting all disclosures except under certain stated circumstances. It has been held in a number of cases with respect to confidentiality provisions in Settlement Agreements that the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552, et seq. (1988) (FOIA), requires federal agencies to disclose requested documents unless they are exempt from disclosure. Faust v. Chemical Leaman Tank Lines, Inc., Case Nos. 92- SWD-2 and 93-STA-15, ARB Final Order Approving Settlement and Dismissing Complaint, March 31, 1998. The records in this case are agency records which must be made available for public inspection and copying under the Freedom of Information Act. However, the employer will be provided a pre-disclosure notification giving the employer the opportunity to challenge any such potential disclosure. In the event the Agreement is disclosed, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552, et seq, the complainant's obligation, under paragraph 6, would then be void, leaving the remainder of the Agreement in effect.

    The Agreement also notes at Paragraph 7 that it is governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of Massachusetts. That provision is interpreted as not limiting the authority of the Secretary or any U.S. District Court to seek or grant appropriate relief under any applicable federal whistleblower statute or regulation. Phillips v. Citizens Assoc. for Sound Energy, Case No. 91-ERA-25, Sec. Final Order of Dismissal (Nov. 4, 1991).

    As so construed, I find the terms of the Agreement to be fair, adequate and reasonable, and therefore approve it. Accordingly, the complaint filed by Valmore Cloutier, Jr. is hereby dismissed with prejudice.

       RICHARD A. MORGAN
       Administrative Law Judge

RAM:dmr