skip navigational linksDOL Seal - Link to DOL Home Page
Images of lawyers, judges, courthouse, gavel
September 25, 2008         DOL Home > OALJ Home > Whistleblower Collection
USDOL/OALJ Reporter

Russell v. Eastern Ohio Regional Wastewater Authority, 1998-CAA-3 and 4 (ALJ July 23, 1999)


U.S. Department of LaborOffice of Administrative Law Judges
Seven Parkway Center - Room 290
Pittsburgh, PA 15220

(412) 644-5754
(412) 644-5005 (FAX)

DOL
Seal

DATE: July 23, 1999

CASE NOS. 1998-CAA-3
    1998-CAA-4

In the Matter of

PAUL RUSSELL AND LYNN ZELLER
    Complainants

    v.

EASTERN OHIO REGIONAL
WASTEWATER AUTHORITY (EORWA)
    Respondent

RECOMMENDED DECISION AND ORDER
APPROVING SETTLEMENT

   Complainants instituted a complaint against EORWA, captioned Paul Russell and Lynn Zeller v. Eastern Ohio Regional Wastewater Authority, (EORWA), Case Nos. 1998-CAA-3 and 1998-CAA-4, (United States Department of Labor, Office of the Administrative Law Judges), before the United States Department of Labor on or about August 4, 1997, seeking damages and other relief ("the Russell/Zeller administrative action").

   Complainant, Paul Russell, filed a series of complaints against EORWA (e.g., December 5, 1996 Complaint; March 3, 1997 Supplemental Complaint; April 7, 1997 Second Supplemental Complaint; June 11, 1997 Third Supplemental Complaint) with the Department of Labor's Wage and Hour Office and, thereafter, on or about February 10, 1998, filed with the Office of Administrative Law Judges of the United States Department of Labor a motion captioned "Complainant Paul Russell's Constructive Appeal of Complaints before Wage and Hour and


[Page 2]

Motion to Consolidate" whereby he sought to appeal the constructive denial by the Wage and Hour Office of his series of complaints and the consolidation of that appeal with the Russell/Zeller administrative action ( "the Russell administrative action").1    Trial was set for June 16, 1998 and continuing by Notice of Hearing dated January 23, 1998. Thereafter, on March 5, 1998, the parties informed me that they had agreed to the appointment of a settlement judge. By Order dated March 12, 1998, the Chief Judge, U.S. Department of Labor appointed Associate Chief Judge Thomas M. Burke to act as Settlement Judge.

   On or about June 9, 1999, Counsel to Complainants, informed me that with the "help of the appointed settlement Judge, Hon. Thomas M. Burke," the parties have settled all of their outstanding legal disputes and submitted the enclosed Joint Motion to Approve Settlement and Dismiss Complainants along with the Settlement Agreement dated June 8, 1999.

   After consideration of the Settlement Agreement and the representations of the parties, I find the Agreement to be fair, adequate and reasonable, and I believe it is in the public interest adopt the Settlement Agreement as a basis for the administrative disposition of this matter.

   Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED:

1. That the settlement agreement attached hereto be approved.

2. That the claims of Paul L. Russell and Lynn Zeller against the above-captioned respondent be dismissed with prejudice.

       MICHAEL P. LESNIAK
       Administrative Law Judge

MPL:mr

NOTICE: This Recommended Decision and Order will automatically become the final order of the Secretary unless, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 24.8, a petition for review is timely filed with the Administrative Review Board, United States Department of Labor, Room S-4309, Frances Perkins Building, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington D.C. 20210. Such a petition for review must be received by the Administrative Review Board within ten business days of the date of this Recommended Order, and shall be served on all parties and on the Chief Administrative Law Judge. See, 29 C.F.R. § 24.8 and 24.9, as amended by 63 Fed. Reg. 6614 (1998).

[ENDNOTES]

1 On January 9, 1998, Deborah Zubaty, Area Director, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Columbus Area, informed Complainants that their complaint of discrimination under Section 322(a) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7622; Section 507(a) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C. 1367; Section 7001(a) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, 42 U.S. C. 6971; Section 1450 of the Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 USC 300-j-9; Toxic Substance Control Act, and 15 U.S.C. 15 U.S.C. 2622, was found to have no merit.



Phone Numbers