DATE: July 31, 1998

CASE NUMBER 1997-CAA-12

In the Matter of

ERIC MUNZ,
    COMPLAINANT,

    v.

SACRAMENTO METROPOLITAN AIR QUALITY
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT,
    RESPONDENT.

   The above-captioned matter arises under 42 U.S.C. §7622, the employee protection provision of the Clean Air Act. On March 12, 1998 the parties submitted a proposed settlement agreement that, if approved, would resolve all disputed issues, including costs and attorney's fees, and allow for the dismissal of this matter with prejudice. Thereafter, the Office of the Solicitor reviewed the proposed agreement and submitted two letters indicating that certain parts of the agreement might be interpreted in a manner inconsistent with the requirements of the Clean Air Act. In response, on July 29, 1998 the parties submitted an addendum to the agreement specifically modifying the agreement so as to fully satisfy the concerns expressed in the two letters from the Office of the Solicitor.

   As required by the relevant regulations and statutory provisions, I have carefully reviewed the entire agreement, including the addendum submitted on July 29, 1998. After doing so, I have concluded that the terms of the agreement are, in fact, fair, adequate and reasonable. I therefore recommend that the agreement be approved.

   It is further noted that the settlement agreement contains a confidentiality provision precluding the parties from voluntarily disclosing its terms except in specified circumstances and that the agreement also contains a clause requesting that the Department of Labor maintain such confidentiality to the full extent permissible under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act or other applicable laws. In this regard, the parties have agreed that the agreement contains confidential commercial and financial information and asked, pursuant to the provisions of 29 C.F.R. §70.26 , that they be given notice of any future request for disclosure of the agreement under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act.

   Accordingly, it is recommended:

   1. That the Secretary of Labor or her designees on the Administrative Review Board approve the settlement agreement;

   2. That the claim of Eric Munz against the above-referenced respondent be dismissed with prejudice; and

   3. That the settlement agreement be given such restricted handling as may be necessary to comply with the provisions of 29 C.F.R. §70.26.

       Paul A. Mapes
       Administrative Law Judge

NOTICE: This Recommended Decision and Order will automatically become the final order of the Secretary of Labor unless, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. §24.8, a petition for review is timely filed with the Administrative Review Board, United States Department of Labor, Room S-4309, Frances Perkins Building, 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20210. Such petition for review must be received by the Administrative Review Board within ten business days of the date of this Recommended Decision and Order, and shall be served on all parties and on the Chief Administrative Law Judge. See 29 C.F.R. §§ 24.8 and 24.9, as amended by 63 Fed. Reg. 6614 (1998).