93-CAA-6, 95-CAA-5 and 96-CAA-2 (ALJ Sept. 17, 1996)
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES
SUITE 400 NORTH
800 K STREET, NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20001
Date: Sept. 17, 1996
Case Nos.: 93-CAA-6, 95-CAA-5 and 96-CAA-2
In the Matter of
ROBERT E. TYNDALL,
Complainant
v.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
Respondent.
Appearances:
EDWARD A. SLAVIN, JR.
For Complainant
LORI A. TETREAULT
For Complainant
DAVID P. GUERRERO
For Respondent
BRIDGET C. SHEA
For Respondent
BEFORE: JOHN M. VITTONE
Chief Administrative Law Judge
RECOMMENDED ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT
AND DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT
These matters arose pursuant to the employee protection provision of the Clean Air Act
(CAA), 15 U.S.C. § 7622. The parties have submitted a settlement agreement for review
by the presiding judge. In cases arising under the CAA, settlement agreements must be reviewed
by the Secretary for a determination of whether the agreement is fair, adequate and reasonable.
Glass v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 95-CAA-16 (ARB July 19, 1996);
Darr v. Precise Hard Chrome, 95-CAA-6 (Sec'y May 9, 1995); McGlynn v. Pulsair,
Inc., 93-CAA-2 (Sec'y June 8, 1993); Hoffman v. Fuel Economy Contracting,
87-ERA-33 (Sec'y Aug. 4, 1989); Milewski v. Kansas Gas & Electric Co., 85-ERA-21
(Sec'y Jan. 15, 1988)(order), aff'd on recon, (Sec'y Apr. 23, 1990)(order).
Initially, I note that Administrative Law Judge Michael P. Lesniak assisted the parties as
a settlement judge in these matters pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 18.9(e). In instances in which
the parties arrive at a CAA "whistleblower" settlement with the assistance of a
section 18.9(e) settlement judge, however, the presiding judge must review the settlement and
make the recommendation of whether to approve the settlement to the Secretary's designee -- the
Administrative Review Board. See 29 C.F.R. § 18.9(e)(11); 61 Fed. Reg. 19978
(May 3, 1996); Secretary's Order 2-96, 61 Fed. Reg. 19982.
It appears that the agreement may encompass the settlement of matters arising under
various laws, only one of which is the CAA. See ¶ 7. Review of the agreement
by the Secretary, however, is limited to determining whether its terms are a fair, adequate and
reasonable settlement of the Complainant's allegations the Respondent violated the CAA.
Poulos v. Ambassador Fuel Oil Co., Inc., 86-CAA-1, slip op. at 2 (Sec'y Nov. 2, 1987).
I find that the agreement provides for a fair, adequate and reasonable settlement of
Complainant's CAA complaints. Accordingly, I recommend that the Administrative Review
Board APPROVE the agreement and DISMISS THE COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE.
See ¶ 3.
