U.S. Department of Labor Office of Administrative Law Judges
525 Vine Street, Suite 900
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Date: May 9, 1997
Case Nos.: 97-STA-1 and 97-STA-3
In the Matter of
ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF LABOR FOR
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH
Prosecuting Party
and
JAMES E. FORRESTER
and
ROBERT H. SPEARMAN
Complainants
v.
ROADWAY EXPRESS, INC.
Respondent
BEFORE: RUDOLF L. JANSEN
Administrative Law Judge
FINAL ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT
AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT
This proceeding arises under Section 31105 of
the Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA) of 1982 (49 U.S.C.
§ 31101) and the regulations promulgated thereunder [29 C.F.R.
Part 1978 (1989)]. The parties, on May 2, 1997, filed a Settlement
Agreement and Release in accordance with 29 C.F.R. §
1978.111(d)(2). The settlement agreement resolves the parties'
controversy arising from the complaints of James E. Forrester and
Robert H. Spearman under the pertinent statute. The Settlement
Agreement and Release is signed by the complainants, counsel for
the prosecuting party, and respondent's counsel. These cases were
consolidated for hearing by Order dated December 13, 1996.
Under the STAA and implementing regulations, a
proceeding may be terminated on the basis of a settlement provided
either the Secretary or the Administrative Law Judge approves the
agreement. 49 U.S.C. app. § 2305(c)(2)(A); 29 C.F.R. §
1978.111(d)(2). Kidd v. Sharron Motor Lines, Inc., Case No.
87-STA-2, Decision and Order on Settlement (July 30, 1987). The
agreement must be reviewed to determine whether the terms are a
[Page 2]
fair, adequate and reasonable settlement of the complaint.
Macktal v. Secretary of Labor, 923 F.2d 1150 (5th Cir.
1991); Thompson v. U.S. Department of Labor, 885 F.2d 551
(9th Cir. 1989); Fuchko and Yunker v. Georgia Power Co.,
Case Nos. 89-ERA-9, 89-ERA-10, Sec'y Ord. Mar. 23, 1989, slip op.
at 1-2.
The Settlement Agreement may encompass the
settlement of matters other than those enumerated under the STAA.
(See II. C.) The Secretary's authority over settlements is
limited to those statutes over which the Secretary has jurisdiction
including the STAA. Therefore, my review of the settlement
agreement is limited to a determination as to whether it consti-
tutes a reasonable settlement of the complainant's allegation that
the respondent violated the STAA.
The Agreement provides that neither complainant
would institute a civil action under any statute in state or
federal court for relief permitted under § 31105 of the Act as
a result of the warning issued by the company in this case. (II.
B.) That paragraph could possibly be construed as a waiver by
complainants of a cause of action potentially arising in the
future. The provision must be interpreted as limited to the right
to sue in the future on claims or causes of action arising out of
facts or any set of facts occurring before the date of the
agreement. Bittner v. Fuel Economy Contracting Co., Case No.
88-ERA-22, Sec. Ord. Approving Settlement Agreement and Dismissing
Complaint (June 28, 1990), Slip op. at 2.
As so construed, I find the terms of the
agreement to be fair, adequate and reasonable, and therefore
approve the agreement and release. Accordingly, the complaints
filed by James E. Forrester and Robert H. Spearman are hereby
dismissed with prejudice.