DATE: January 4, 1993
CASE NO. 92-ERA-9
IN THE MATTER OF
JAMES E. HOUSE,
COMPLAINANT,
v.
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY,
RESPONDENT.
BEFORE: THE SECRETARY OF LABOR
FINAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Before me for review is the Recommended Decision and Order
(R.D. and O.) of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) in this case
arising under the employee protection provision of the Energy
Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended (ERA), 42 U.S.C. §
5851 (1988). The ALJ recommends dismissal of the complaint on
the merits, concluding that Complainant failed to establish a
prima facie case of retaliation for protected activity in
violation of the Act. An Order Establishing Briefing Schedule
was issued on October 27, 1992.
Complainant filed a Notice, dated November 25, 1992,
indicating his desire to withdraw the claim. Respondent filed a
response letter, dated December 4, 1992, stating there is no
objection to Complainant's voluntary dismissal of this case
without liability for payment of fees and costs, and further
indicating that there is no settlement involved.
It well settled that voluntary dismissals of ERA complaints
are covered by Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Rainey v. State University, Case No. 90-ERA-40, Sec. Order
to
[PAGE 2]
Show Cause, Jan. 7, 1991, slip op. at 3 (citing Nolder v.
Kaiser Engineers, Inc., Case No. 84-ERA-5, Sec. Final Dec.
and Order, June 28, 1985, slip op. at 6-7); Sec. Order of
Dismissal, Feb. 27, 1991. The filings before me indicate that the parties
have chosen of their own accord to have the case unconditionally
dismissed. Respondent's written response that it does not object
to Complainant's voluntary dismissal and that it will bear its
own costs and fees, together with Complainant's notice of
voluntary dismissal, may be deemed to constitute a stipulation of
dismissal by the parties satisfying the requirements of Rule
41(a)(1)(ii).
Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed without prejudice.
SO ORDERED.
LYNN MARTIN
Secretary of Labor
Washington, D.C.