Bragg v. South Texas Project Nuclear Operating Co., 1999-ERA-24 (ALJ Mar. 22, 2000)

CASE NO. 99-ERA-24

BRANDON BRAGG,
    Complainant

   v.

SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT NUCLEAR
OPERATING COMPANY,
    Respondents.

   This proceeding arises under the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (ERA), 42 U.S.C. § 5851 (1982), as amended, and the regulations promulgated thereunder at 29 C.F.R. Part 24 which are employee protective provisions of the ERA or of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 42 U.S. C. § 2011, et seq. The Secretary of Labor is empowered to investigate and determine "whistleblower" complaints filed by employees at facilities licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) who are allegedly discharged or otherwise discriminated against with regard to their terms and conditions of employment for taking any action relating to the fulfillment of safety or other requirements established by the NRC.

   On or about March 12, 1999, the Complainant filed a complaint with the United States Department of Labor alleging retaliation charges against the Respondent, South Texas Project Nuclear Operating Company under 42 U.S. C. § 5851, as amended.

   On February 25, 2000, counsel for the Complainant and the Respondent forwarded a Joint Motion for Approval of a Settlement Agreement and Dismissal with Prejudice based upon a compromise of the outstanding disputed issues. The Settlement Agreement is signed by the parties dated February 25, 2000, and purports to incorporate the understanding of the parties as to the basis of the settlement. The parties have moved that the Court recommend that the case be dismissed with prejudice.

   My review of the Settlement Agreement is limited to a determination of whether its terms are a fair, adequate and reasonable settlement of the Complainant's complaints concerning violations of the Energy Reorganization Act. The basic criteria is whether or not the settlement adequately protects the whistleblower. Further, the settlement must not be contrary to the public interests.

   After consideration of the Settlement Agreement and the representations of the parties, I find the agreement to be fair, adequate and reasonable, and I believe it is in the public interest to adopt the Settlement Agreement as a basis for the administrative disposition of this matter. Therefore, in accordance with the authority conferred by 29 C.F.R. § 8.39(b), I recommend dismissal with prejudice of the outstanding issues involving the Complainant and the Respondent in the above- numbered cause.

   ORDERED this 22nd day of March, 2000, at Metairie, Louisiana.

      CLEMENT J. KENNINGTON
      ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE