The parties have agreed to settle White's STAA claim. Accordingly, with the reservations noted above, we APPROVE the agreement and DISMISS the complaint with prejudice.
SO ORDERED.
M. CYNTHIA DOUGLASS
Chief Administrative Appeals Judge
OLIVER M. TRANSUE
0Administrative Appeals Judge
[ENDNOTES]
1 49 U.S.C.A. § 31105 (West 2007). The STAA has been amended since Fernando White filed his complaint. See Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007, P.L. 110-53, 121 Stat. 266 (Aug. 3, 2007). We need not decide here whether the amendments are applicable to this complaint because even if the amendments applied to this complaint, they are not implicated by the settlement at issue here and thus would not affect our decision.
2 29 C.F.R. Part 1978 (2007).
3 29 C.F.R. § 1978.111(d)(2).
4 See id.
5 5 U.S.C.A. § 557(b) (West 2008).
6 See Roadway Express, Inc. v. Dole, 929 F.2d 1060, 1066 (5th Cir. 1991).
7 See, e.g., para. B of the Agreement.
8 Fish v. H & R Transfer, ARB No. 01-071, ALJ No. 2000-STA-056, slip op. at 2 (ARB Apr. 30, 2003).
9 Conn. 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); Ruud v. Westinghouse Hanford Co., ARB No. 96-087, ALJ No. 1988-ERA-033, slip op. at 6 (ARB Nov. 10, 1997).
10 See Phillips v. Citizens Ass'n for Sound Energy, 1991-ERA-025, slip op. at 2 (Sec'y Nov. 4, 1991).