DATE:  December 4, 1995
CASE NOS. 93-ERA-2
          95-ERA-48


IN THE MATTER OF 

RONALD A. THOMPSON,

          COMPLAINANT,

     v.

HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY,

          RESPONDENT.


BEFORE:   THE SECRETARY OF LABOR


                     FINAL ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT
                         AND DISMISSING COMPLAINTS

     These cases arise under the employee protection provision of
the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (ERA), as amended, 42
U.S.C. § 5851 (1988 and Supp. IV 1992).  The parties
submitted a Settlement Agreement and Full and Final Release
seeking approval of the settlement and dismissal of the
complaints.  The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued decisions
on October 20,  1995, pertaining to Case No. 95-ERA-48 and on
October 25, 1995, pertaining to both 93-ERA-2 and 95-ERA-48(sic),
recommending that the settlement be approved with regard to both
cases.  
     The request for approval is based on an agreement entered
into by the parties, therefore, I must review it to determine
whether the terms are a fair, adequate and reasonable settlement
of the complaint.  42 U.S.C. § 5851(b)(2)(A) (1988). 
Macktal v. Secretary of Labor, 923 F.2d 1150, 1153-54 (5th
Cir. 1991); Thompson v. U.S. Dep't 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. 

[PAGE 2]
     The agreement appears to encompass the settlement of matters
arising under various laws, only one of which is the ERA.  See
paragraphs 4, 5(c), 6(a) and (b), 7(e), 8 and 10.  For the
reasons set forth in Poulos v. Ambassador Fuel Oil Co.,
Inc., Case No. 86-CAA-1, Sec. Order, Nov. 2, 1987, slip op.
at 2, I have limited my review of the agreement to determining
whether its terms are a fair, adequate and reasonable settlement
of the Complainant's allegations that Respondent violated the
ERA.
     Paragraph 3 contains language which provides that the
Complainant shall keep the terms of the Settlement Agreement
confidential except to his attorneys, financial advisors, and
officials of various government agencies.  I construe this
confidentiality provision as not restricting any disclosure where
required by law.  McGlynn v. Pulsair Inc., Case No. 93-
CAA-2, Sec. Final Order Approving Settlement, June 28, 1993, slip
op. at 3.  
     The parties' submissions including the agreement become part
of the record of the case and are subject to the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552 (1988).  FOIA
requires Federal agencies to disclose requested records unless
they are exempt from disclosure under the Act.[1]   See Debose
v. Carolina Power & Light Co., Case No. 92-ERA-14, Ord.
Disapproving Settlement and Remanding Case, Feb. 7, 1994, slip
op. at 2-3 and cases there cited.  
     I find that the agreement, as here construed, is a fair,
adequate and reasonable settlement of the complaints. 
Accordingly, I APPROVE the agreement and DISMISS THE COMPLAINTS
WITH PREJUDICE.  
     SO ORDERED.


                              ROBERT B. REICH
                              Secretary of Labor

Washington, D.C.





[ENDNOTES]
           
[1] 
  Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 70.26(b), submitters may designate
specific information as confidential commercial information to be
handled as provided in the regulations.  When FOIA requests are
received for such information, the Department of Labor will
notify the submitter promptly, 29 C.F.R. § 70.26(c); the
submitter will be given a reasonable amount of time to state its
objections to disclosure, 29 C.F.R. § 70.26(e); and the
submitter will be notified if a decision is made to disclose the
information, 29 C.F.R. § 70.26(f).  If the information is
withheld and a suit is filed by the requester to compel
disclosure, the submitter will be notified, 29 C.F.R. §
70.26(h).