DATE:  November 28, 1994
CASE NO. 94-ERA-31


IN THE MATTER OF 

DR. ZHONGTUO TAN,

          COMPLAINANT,

     v.

DEBORAH RESEARCH INSTITUTE,

          RESPONDENT.


BEFORE:   THE SECRETARY OF LABOR


                     FINAL ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT
                         AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT

     This case arises 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 General Release seeking
approval of the settlement and dismissal of the complaint.  The
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued a decision on October 14,
1994, recommending that the settlement be approved.  Because the
request for approval is based on the agreement entered into by
the parties, 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. 
     The agreement appears to encompass the settlement of matters
arising under various laws, only one of which is the ERA. 
See pages 2-4.  For the reasons set forth in Poulos v.
Ambassador Fuel Oil Co., Inc., Case No. 86-CAA-1, Sec. Ord.,
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 
[PAGE 2]
settlement of the Complainant's allegations that the Respondent
violated the ERA.
     Pages 2-4 of the agreement could be construed as a waiver by
the parties of any causes of action they may have which arise in
the future.  As the Secretary has held in prior cases, see
Johnson v. Transco Products, Inc., Case No. 85-ERA-7, Sec.
Ord. Approving Settlement, Aug. 8, 1985, such provisions must be
interpreted as limited to the right to sue in the future on
claims or causes of action arising out of facts or any set of
facts occurring before the date of the agreement.  See
also Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., 45 U.S. 36, 51-
52 (1974); Rogers v. General Electric Co., 781 F.2d 452,
454 (5th Cir. 1986).  
   Page 5 contains language which provides that the
Complainant and his attorney 
     shall keep confidential and shall make no disclosure of or
     reference to the existance or terms of this Settlement
     Agreement and General Release . . . . [Except] [s]hould
     either party be required to explain the facts surrounding
     the separation of Dr. Tan because of Department of Labor
     publication of information relating to his claim, or because
     of other legal proceedings, it will be able to do so. 
 
The parties' submissions, including the agreement become part of
the record of the case and the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA),
5 U.S.C. § 552 (1988), 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.             
     Additionally, language on page 6 of the agreement provides
that the laws of Pennsylvania shall govern this agreement.  This
provision is interpreted as not limiting the authority of the
Secretary or the United States district court under the
applicable statutes and regulations.    
     I find that the agreement, as here construed, is a fair,
adequate and reasonable settlement of the complaint. 
Accordingly, I APPROVE the agreement and DISMISS THE COMPLAINT
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).