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>
Dorsey v. Greenbrier County Public Service District # 2, 96-WPC-3 (ALJ July 25, 1997)

U.S. Department of Labor
Office of Administrative Law Judges
Commerce Plaza
603 Pilot House Drive, Suite 300
Newport News, VA 23606

DATE: July 25, 1997

CASE NO.: 96-WPC-3

IN THE MATTER OF

DONALD DORSEY,
    Complainant

    v.

GREENBRIER COUNTY PUBLIC SERVICE DISTRICT #2,
    Respondent.

RECOMMENDED DECISION AND ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT AND
DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE COMPLAINANT

    This is a case that arises under the employee protection provisions of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. 33 U.S.C. § 1367 (1988).

   The parties appeared at a hearing in Lewisburg, West Virginia on June 17, 1997. At that time, the parties indicated that they had reached a settlement, in principle.

   The parties were directed to submit a signed


[Page 2]

settlement agreement pursuant to the directions of the undersigned Administrative Law Judge. The settlement agreement, signed by both counsel and by Mr. Dorsey, was submitted on July 22, 1997. The agreement will be attached to this order.

   At the hearing the Complainant informed the undersigned that

1. He is satisfied with the amount of the cash settlement

2. He earns more in present employment than he did with the Respondent and

3. He does not desire reinstatement with the Respondent.

   As the settlement agreement did not mention attorney fees, this office attempted to contact Ms. Scotti, but learned that she was on vacation. Subsequently, Counsel for the Respondent was contacted, and he later sent a telefax which stated in part

This letter is confirming the fact that my client, Greenbrier County Public Service District No. 2, has tendered a lump sum settlement payment to the Complainant, Donald Dorsey, and Mr. Dorsey's attorney, Carole Scotti, and that Ms. Scotti's attorney's fees were included in that payment.

   In light of McGlynn v. Pulsair, Inc., 93-CAA-2 (Secretary's decision issued on June 28, 1993), this agreement has been reviewed pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

   The undersigned finds that the terms of the settlement are fair, adequate, and reasonable. Therefore, it is recommended that this case be dismissed with prejudice.

       RICHARD K. MALAMPHY
       Administrative Law Judge

RKM/ccb
Newport News, Virginia

NOTICE: This Recommended Decision and Order and the administrative file in this matter will be forwarded for review by the Secretary of Labor, Room S-4309, Frances Perkins Building, 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20210. The Administrative Review Board has the responsibility to advise and assist the Secretary in the preparation and the issuance of final decisions in employee protection cases adjudicated under the regulations of 29 C.F.R. Parts 24 and 1978. See 55 Fed. Reg. 13250 (1990).



Phone Numbers