DATE: JAN 21 1990
CASE NO. 88-TSC-1

IN THE MATTER OF

RANDY MONTOYA,
    PLAINTIFF

    v.

VANCOUVER EXTRUSION COMPANY, INC.,
    DEFENDANT

Before: THOMAS SCHNEIDER
    Administrative Law Judge

    I find the following facts:

    1. On or about October 2, 1987, Randy Montoya ("Montoya") filed a Complaint at Case No. 88-TSC-1 alleging, inter alia, that Vancouver Extrusion Company, Inc. ("Vanexco") had engaged in discriminatory employment practices in violation of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, the Toxic Substances Control Act, and/or other laws as a result of Montoya's alleged reporting of violations by Vanexco of environmental law to the Washington Department of Ecology.

    2. Vanexco denied and continues to deny that it engaged in any unlawful employment practices, or that it violated any state or federal environmental laws.

    3. On or about January 7, 1988, the U.S. Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division, notified the parties that its investigation disclosed that Montoya's termination was not based on discrimination,

but was justified.

    4. On or about January 12, 1988, counsel for Montoya notified Vanexco that Montoya had filed a Notice of Appeal and Request for Hearing.

    5. The matter was set for trial on March 1, 1988, and thereafter continued on consent of the parties until August 15, 1988.

    6. On or about August 12, 1988, the parties agreed to a settlement of the case, and accordingly informed the Department of Labor that the case had been settled and that there was consequently no need for a trial. The parties contemplated that this settlement would fully and finally resolve all claims asserted in Case No. 88-TSC-1.

    7. In accordance with the terms of the agreement reached by the parties on August 12, 1988, on October 11, 1988, the parties executed a Settlement Agreement, which is further discussed in paragraph 12 below.

    8. In consideration of certain actions by Vanexco, Montoya agreed, inter alia, to "forever settle, adjust and discharge all claims of Montoya against Vanexco" and to dismiss the case filed at No. 88-TSC-1 and all claims asserted therein "with prejudice."

    9. Vanexco has performed all of its obligations under the Settlement Agreement, and Montoya has accepted the benefits thereunder.

    10. Montoya entered into the Settlement Agreement voluntarily, without coercion and with the assistance of counsel.

    11. The settlement entered into by the parties is fair, reasonable, and not against the public interest.

    12. The parties failed to submit evidence of their agreement to me after several telephonic requests. Thereafter, on October 12, 1989, I issued an order to show cause why the case should not be dismissed. The parties responded, but did not produce a copy of the settlement agreement. Pursuant to Thompson v. The Detroit Edison Company, 87-ERA-2 (Sec'y. of Labor, Sept. 29, 1989) I ordered production of the settlement agreement on November 23, 1989. The agreement has been produced and is made part of the file.

    I recommend that the Secretary approve the settlement agreement and dismiss this case with prejudice.

       Thomas Schneider
       Administrative Law Judge