As construed, the Board finds that the settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable. Accordingly, with the reservations noted above limiting our approval to the settlement of Woodley's STAA claim, we APPROVE the agreement and DISMISS the complaint with prejudice.
SO ORDERED.
M. CYNTHIA DOUGLASS
Chief Administrative Appeals Judge
WAYNE C. BEYER
Administrative Appeals Judge
[ENDNOTES]
1 49 U.S.C.A. § 31105 (West 2007).
2 29 C.F.R. § 1978.111(d)(2) (2007).
3 Id.
4 29 C.F.R. § 1978.109(c)(2); Monroe v. Cumberland Transp. Corp., ARB No. 01-101, ALJ No. 2000-STA-050 (ARB Sept. 26, 2001); Cook v. Shaffer Trucking Inc., ARB No. 01-051, ALJ No. 2000-STA-017 (ARB May 30, 2001).
5 29 C.F.R. § 1978.109(c)(2).
6 Settlement Agreement and Release paras. 1, 6.
7 Id. at para. 1.
8 Fish v. H & R Transfer, ARB No. 01-071, ALJ No. 2000-STA-056, slip op. at 2 (ARB Apr. 30, 2003).
9 Settlement Agreement and Release para. 9.
10 Coffman v. Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co. & Arctic Slope Inspection Serv., ARB No. 96-141, ALJ Nos. 1996-TSC-005, 6, slip op. at 2 (ARB June 24, 1996).
11 29 C.F.R. § 70 et seq. (2007).
12 Ruud v. Westinghouse Hanford Co., ARB No. 96-087, ALJ No. 1988-ERA-033, slip op. at 6 (ARB Nov. 10, 1997); Connecticut Light & Power Co. v. Sec'y, U.S. Dep't of Labor, 85 F.3d 89, 95-96 (2d Cir. 1996) (employer engaged in unlawful discrimination by restricting complainant's ability to provide regulatory agencies with information; improper "gag" provision constituted adverse employment action).