Louch v. Hogan Brothers, Inc., 2001-STA-27 (ALJ Sept. 6, 2001)

U.S. Department of Labor

Office of Administrative Law Judges 800 K Street, NW, Suite 400-N Washington, DC 20001-8002

Issue date: 06Sep2001

CASE NO.: 2001 STA 27

In the Matter of

    WILLIAM G. LOUCH
    Complainant

    v.

    HOGAN BROTHERS, INC.
    Respondent

APPEARANCES:
      Ms. Candace S. McCall, Attorney
      For the Complainant

      Mr. Joseph P. Underwood, Attorney
      For the Respondent

BEFORE: Richard T. Stansell-Gamm
   Administrative Law Judge

   This proceeding arises under the provisions of Section 405 of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act ("STAA"), 49 U.S.C. § 31105. Pursuant to a Notice of Hearing, dated February 22, 2001, and a series of continuance orders, I set a hearing date of August 14, 2001 for this case in Washington D.C. On the day before the hearing, Ms. McCall informed me that the parties had reached a settlement. On August 29, 2001, I received the settlement agreement signed by Mr. Louch and a representative of the Respondent, a proposed stipulated order of dismissal signed by the parties' counsel and a proposed protective order concerning the confidentiality of the settlement provisions, also jointly signed by counsel.

   As required by 29 C.F.R. § 1978.111, I have carefully reviewed the settlement agreement. Both parties were represented by counsel and I find the terms of the agreement are fair, adequate and reasonable.

   Both the settlement agreement and the proposed protective order essentially require the parties to maintain the confidentiality of the settlement unless disclosure is required by compulsion of law. In addition, protective order requires that the parties receive thirty days, or reasonable, notice of any requested disclosure. These provisions do not appear contrary to law or conflict with Freedom of Information Act. As a result, I incorporate the confidentiality provisions of the proposed protective order and the settlement agreement into to this decision and order.

   Finally, in the proposed order of dismissal, the parties, through counsel, agree that Mr. Louch's case (complaint) will be dismissed with prejudice.

   Accordingly,

   I APPROVE the settlement agreement and proposed protective order;

   I DISMISS Mr. Louch's Section 405 complaint with prejudice; and,

I DIRECT that the settlement agreement be given such restricted handling consistent with the provisions of 29 C.F.R. § 70.26.¹

¹My approval of the settlement agreement and dismissal of the complaint constitutes the final order in this matter. 29 C.F.R. § 1978.111 (d) (2) and Petti v. Des Moines Asphalt & Paving, Co. ARB No. 97-032 (OALJ No. 1996-STA-3) (ARB December 30, 1996).