DATE:  August 31, 1992
CASE NOS. 92-ERA-0023  
          92-ERA-0024

DEWEY RAY SMITH

     and

MICHAEL A. SMITH,

          COMPLAINANTS,

     v.

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY,

          RESPONDENT.


BEFORE:  THE SECRETARY OF LABOR


                      ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENTS AND
                   DISMISSING COMPLAINTS WITH PREJUDICE

     These cases arise under the employee protection provision of
the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended (ERA), 42
U.S.C. § 5851 (1988), and were consolidated for hearing by
Order of the District Chief Administrative Law Judge on May 14,
1992.     The parties submitted a Joint Motion for Dismissal with
an attached Memorandum of Understanding and Agreement, dated 
June 24, 1992, indicating that Complainant Dewey Ray Smith agreed
to a settlement of his complaint against the Tennessee Valley
Authority (TVA) (Exhibit 1), and a Memorandum of Understanding
and Agreement, dated June 24, 1992, indicating that Complainant
Michael A. Smith agreed to a settlement of his complaint against
the TVA (Exhibit 2).  The parties jointly requested dismissal 
of the complaints with prejudice.  Because this request for
dismissal is based on settlement agreements entered into by the
parties, I must review the agreements to determine whether the
terms are a fair, adequate, and reasonable settlement of the
complaints.  42 U.S.C. § 5851(b)(2)(A); Macktal v.
Secretary of 
[PAGE 2]
Labor, 923 F.2d 1150, 1153-54 (5th Cir. 1991); Thompson v.
United States Department of Labor, 885 F.2d 551, 556 (9th
Cir. 1989); Fuchko and Yunker v. Georgia Power Co., Case
Nos. 89-ERA-9, 89-ERA-10, Sec. Order, Mar. 23, 1989, slip op. at
1-2.  
     These settlement agreements may encompass matters arising
under various laws only one of which is the ERA.  As my authority
over settlement agreements is limited to such statutes as are
within my jurisdiction and is defined by the applicable statute,
see Goese v. Ebasco Services, Inc., Case No. 88-
ERA-25, Sec. Order Approving Settlement and Dismissing Case, Dec.
8, 1988; Poulos v. Ambassador Fuel Oil Co., Inc., Case No.
86-CAA-1, Sec. Order, Nov. 2, 1987, and cases cited therein, I
have limited my review to determining whether the terms of the
agreements are fair, adequate, and reasonable to settle
Complainants' allegations that Respondent violated the ERA.
     Upon review of the terms of the agreements and the record in
these cases, I find that the agreements are fair, adequate and
reasonable, and therefore, I approve the agreements. [1] 
Accordingly, these cases are DISMISSED with prejudice, as
requested in the Joint Motion for Dismissal.  
     SO ORDERED.

                              LYNN MARTIN
                              Secretary of Labor

Washington, D.C.


OAA:CHIGGINS:kmp:February 20, 1996
S-4309:523-9728


[ENDNOTES]
           
[1]   Paragraph 11 of the agreement concerning Complainant Dewey
Ray Smith provides for confidentiality of the terms of
Complainant's awards, except for family, attorneys, tax or
financial advisers, and as required by legal process.  Paragraph
10 of the agreement concerning Complainant Michael A. Smith
contains an identical provision.  I note that the parties'
submissions become part of the record in the case and that the
Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552 (1988), requires
federal agencies to disclose requested records unless they are
exempt from disclosure under the Act.  See Hamka v.
Detroit Edison Co., Case No. 88-ERA-26, Sec. Order to Submit
Attachments, Dec. 9, 1991, slip op. at 2, n.1.