FINAL ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT
AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT
This case arises under the employee protection provision of the Energy
Reorganization Act of 1974 (ERA), as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 5851 (1988 and Supp. IV
1992). The Complainant Steven Boudrie and Respondent Bechtel Construction Company
(Bechtel) submitted a Settlement Agreement and General Release pursuant to our Order of
January 30, 1997, seeking approval of the settlement and dismissal of the complaint against
Bechtel only. The agreement does not prohibit or restrict the Complainant from participating in
any state or federal administrative, judicial, or legislative proceeding with respect to any claims
or matters, including any remaining or future claims against Respondent Commonwealth Edison
Company. See ¶ 5. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued a Recommended
Decision and Order on December 11, 1995, recommending that the settlement be approved.
The request for approval is based on an agreement entered into by the
parties, therefore, we must review it to determine whether the terms are a fair, adequate and
reasonable settlement of the complaint. 42 U.S.C. § 5851(b)(2)(A) (1988). Macktal v.
Secretary of Labor, 923 F.2d 1150, 1153-54 (5th Cir. 1991); Thompson v. U.S. Dep't of
Labor, 885 F.2d 551, 556 (9th Cir. 1989); 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.
[Page 2]
The agreement appears to encompass the settlement of matters arising
under various laws, only one of which is the ERA. See ¶ 4. For the reasons set forth in
Poulos v. Ambassador Fuel Oil Co., Inc., Case No. 86-CAA-1, Sec. Order, Nov. 2,
1987, slip op. at 2, we have limited our review of the agreement to determining whether its terms
are a fair, adequate and reasonable settlement of the Complainant's allegations that Respondent
violated the ERA.
We find that the agreement, as here construed, is a fair, adequate and
reasonable settlement of the complaint. Accordingly, we APPROVE the agreement and
DISMISS THE COMPLAINT against Respondent Bechtel WITH PREJUDICE. See ¶ 3.