Green v. Fluor Corp., 2003-TSC-1 (ALJ June 23, 2003)

U.S. Department of Labor

Office of Administrative Law Judges 50 Fremont Street, Suite 2100 San Francisco, CA 94105 (415) 744-6577 (415) 744-6569 (FAX)

Issue Date: 23 June 2003

CASE NO. 2003-TSC-00001

In the Matter of:

RICHARD GREEN,
    Complainant,

   vs.

FLUOR CORPORATION AND DUKE/FLUOR DANIEL,
   Respondents.

Appearances:

For the Complainant
A. Alene Anderson, Esq., Seattle, Washington

For Respondents
William R. Squires, Esq., Seattle, Washington
Shannon E. Phillips, Esq., Seattle, Washington

   Mr. Green was employed as a Quality Control Manager by Fluor Constructors International Inc. from October 29, 2001 until May 21, 2002, working on power plant construction in Elma, Washington. After his termination, he filed a complaint with the Secretary of Labor against Fluor Corporation and Duke/Fluor Daniel (Employer) under the employee protection provisions of several federal statutes (the employee protection statues) including the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976, 15 U.S.C. §§2622 the Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1367; the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7622; the Solid Waste Disposal Act, 42 U.S.C. § 6971; the "Clean Water Act," which I take to invoke the protections of the Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S.C. § 300j-9(i) ; and the Secretary's implementing regulations for these statutes published at 29 C.F.R. Part 24. Employer requested a de novo hearing after the Department's investigation found that Mr. Green's termination violated the employee protection statutes and required remedial action. 29 C.F.R. § 24.4(d). Before the trial scheduled for June 23, 2003, the parties negotiated a Settlement Agreement and Release (Settlement Agreement) which was submitted for review and approval on June 3, 2003, accompanied by a Stipulation and Agreed Motion for Dismissal with Prejudice. Certain deficiencies in that agreement were amended, and a revised Settlement Agreement was submitted on June 20, 2003.

   I have carefully reviewed the entire agreement, which is attached to this order. I have concluded that the terms of the agreement are fair, adequate and reasonable, and recommend that the agreement be approved.    It is recommended that:

1. The Administrative Review Board, acting for Secretary of Labor, approve the settlement agreement;

2. The claim of Richard Green against Respondent, Fluor Corporation, and Duke Fluor Daniel Division of Fluor Corporation, be dismissed with prejudice.

      WILLIAM DORSEY
      Administrative Law Judge

WRD