DATE: May 9, 1995
CASE NO. 95-ERA-6


IN THE MATTER OF

SAMUEL J. ING, M.D.,

          COMPLAINANT,

     v.

JERRY L. PETTIS VETERANS AFFAIRS 
MEDICAL CENTER,

          RESPONDENT.


BEFORE:   THE SECRETARY OF LABOR


                     FINAL ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT

     Before me for review is the Recommended Decision and Order
Approving Settlement and Dismissing Complaint issued April 4,
1995, by the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) in this case, under
the employee protection provision of the Energy Reorganization
Act of 1974, as amended (ERA). 42 U.S.C. § 5851 (1988).  The
ALJ found the agreement fair, adequate and reasonable, see
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, and
recommended that the agreement be approved and the case dismissed
with prejudice.
     Review of the agreement reveals that it may encompass the
settlement of matters under laws other than the ERA.  Settlement
Agreement ¶ 1.  As stated in Poulos v. Ambassador Fuel
Oil Co., Inc., Case No. 86-CAA-1, Sec. Order, Nov. 2, 1987,
slip op. at 2:
     [The Secretary's] authority over settlement agreements is
     limited to such statutes as are within [the Secretary's]
     jurisdiction and is defined by the applicable statute.
     See Aurich v. Consolidated Edison Company of New York,
     Inc., 
[PAGE 2]
     Case No. [86-]CAA-2, Sec. Order Approving Settlement, issued
     July 29, 1987; Chase v. Buncombe County, N.C., Case
     No. 85-SWD-4, Sec. Order on Remand, issued November 3, 1986.

I have therefore, limited my review of the agreement to
determining whether the terms thereof are a fair, adequate and
reasonable settlement of Complainant's allegation that Respondent
violated the ERA.
     I note that pursuant to ¶ 3(d) of the agreement that
the parties agree that the terms of the agreement will be kept
confidential.  I have held in a number of cases with respect to
confidentiality provisions in settlement agreements that the
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) "requires agencies to disclose
requested documents unless they are exempt from disclosure
. . . ."  Plumlee v. Alyeska Pipeline Service Co., Case
Nos. 92-TSC-7, 10; 92-WPC-6, 7, 8, 10, Sec. Final Order Approving
Settlements and Dismissing Cases with Prejudice, Aug. 6, 1993,
slip op. at 6.  See also Davis v. Valley View Ferry
Authority, Case No. 93-WPC-1, Sec. Final Order Approving
Settlement and Dismissing Complaint, Jun. 28, 1993, slip op. at 2
n.1 (parties' submissions become part of record and are subject
to FOIA); Ratliff v. Airco Gases, Case No. 93-STA-5, Sec.
Final Order Approving Settlement and Dismissing Complaint with
Prejudice, Jun. 25, 1993, slip op. at 2 (same); Reid v.
Tennessee Valley Auth., Case No. 91-ERA-17, Sec. Order
Approving Settlement and Dismissing Complaint with Prejudice,
Aug. 31, 1992, slip op. at 3 n.1 (same); Daily v. Portland
Gen'l Elec. Co., Case No. 88-ERA-40, Sec. Order Approving
Settlement and Dismissing Case, Mar. 1, 1990, slip op. at 1 n.1
(same).  
     The records in this case are agency records which must be
made available for public inspection and copying under the FOIA. 
In the event a request for inspection or copying of the record of
this case is made by a member of the public, that request must be
responded to as provided in the FOIA.  If an exemption is
applicable to the record in this case or any specific document in
it, the Department of Labor would determine at the time a request
is made whether to exercise its discretion to claim the exemption
and withhold the document.  If no exemption were applicable, the
document would have to be disclosed.  Since no FOIA request has
been made, it would be premature to determine whether any of the
exemptions in FOIA would be applicable and whether the Department
of Labor would exercise its authority to claim such an exemption
and withhold the requested information.  It would also be
inappropriate to decide such questions in this proceeding.  
     Department of Labor regulations provide specific procedures
for responding to FOIA requests, for appeals by requestors from
denials of such requests, and for protecting the interests of 
[PAGE 3]
submitters of confidential commercial information.  See 29
C.F.R. Part 70 (1993).   
     Upon review of the terms of the agreement signed by the
parties, and based on the record of this case, I find that the
agreement is fair, adequate and reasonable.  I therefore accept
the ALJ's recommendation that the agreement be approved.
Accordingly, this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.  Settlement
Agreement, paragraph 1(b).
     SO ORDERED.

                              ROBERT B. REICH
                              Secretary of Labor

Washington, D.C.