Hines v. Village of Gnadenhutten, 2000-WPC-1 (ALJ June 28, 2000)

	U.S. Department of Labor Office of Administrative Law Judges

www.oalj.dol.gov

[skip navigational links] Search | A-Z Index

Find It! on DOL | OALJ Home | OALJ Law Library | About Us

September 25, 2008 DOL Home > OALJ Home > Whistleblower Collection

USDOL/OALJ Reporter

Hines v. Village of Gnadenhutten, 2000- WPC-1 (ALJ June 28, 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)
DOL
Seal
DATE: June 28, 2000

CASE NO. 2000-WPC-1

In the Matter of

KENNY HINES
Complainant

VILLAGE OF GNADENHUTTEN
Respondent

RECOMMENDED DECISION AND ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT

Complainant filed a complaint and two supplemental complaints setting forth his claim of discrimination based upon the Safe Water Drinking Act, 42 U.S.C. § 300j-9(i) and the Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1367. Complainant alleged that he engaged in protected activity as a result of his relationship with a co-employee. The Complainant alleged that the co-employee was a suspected whistleblower as defined under the Acts, and that the Complainant refused to join in the harassment that was directed toward this co- employee. Complainant also alleged that after he initiated a complaint under the Ohio Occupational Health and Safety Act, in October 1998, he was discriminated against and terminated from his part-time job with the Respondent based solely upon his protected activity of filing the complaint. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration investigated Complainant's allegations and by letter dated December 30, 1999, Deborah Zubaty, Area Director, informed Complainant that his complaint was investigated and found to have no merit.

On or about January 6, 2000, Complainant filed a request for a hearing before the Department of Labor's Office of Administrative Law Judges. A Notice of Hearing was issued January 18, 2000, which set out a discovery schedule and notice that trial would begin May 9, 2000 and continuing as necessary. Trial began May 9, 2000 and on the following day, May 10, 2000, the parties announced in open court that a settlement had been reached. They were permitted time in which to submit a written Settlement Agreement. By letter dated June 22, 2000, the parties submitted said Agreement. My review of the Settlement Agreement is limited to a determination of whether its' terms are fair, adequate and reasonable settlement of the Complainant's complaint concerning violations of the Safe Water Drinking Act and the Water Pollution Control Act. The basic criteria is whether the Settlement adequately protects the whistleblower. Further, the Settlement must not be contrary to public interest.

[Page 2]

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 to 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 claim of Kenneth Hines against the Village of Gnadenhutten 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).