97-CAA-19

In the Matter of:

DANIEL LAWN,
    Complainant,

    vs.

STATE OF ALASKA, DEPARTMENT
OF ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSERVATION,
   Respondent.

   The above-captioned matter arises under the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7622, et seq., and pursuant to 29 C.F.R. Part 24. On April 27, 1998, the parties filed a Stipulation of Settlement that, if approved, would resolve all issues and allow for the dismissal of this matter with prejudice. The parties requested that I expedite approval of the settlement in light of the fact that the deadline for submitting judgments to the Alaska legislature for this session is April 28, 1998.

Although I have only received a fax copy of the settlement, I recommend approval of the settlement based on the parties' representations regarding the deadline. The parties will forward the original settlement, including signature pages, to this office.

   The parties have also orally represented that no other agreements have been entered into between them which arise out of the same facts and circumstances which gave rise to this action. They will submit a signed stipulation to that effect which will become part of the settlement.

   The complaint was filed in this case on February 3, 1997. After an investigation by the Wage and Hour Division, the investigator concluded, in a letter dated September 22, 1997, that Mr. Lawn's "current employment agreement was . . . an adequate remedy for job retention and content concerns raised in this current whistleblower complaint." The only remedy recommended by Wage and Hour was payment "of any attorney fees resulting from [the] current whistleblower complaint." Thus, the only contested issue before this tribunal was the amount of attorney fees due Mr. Lawn's counsel.

   As required by the relevant regulations and statutory provisions, I have reviewed the agreement to determine if its terms are fair, adequate, and reasonable. After doing so, and considering that both sides are represented by competent counsel, I conclude that the terms of the agreement are, in fact, fair, adequate, and reasonable and that the agreement should therefore be approved. Although I may not approve the actual amount of the attorney fee, pursuant to Tinsley v. 179 South Street Venture, 89-CAA-3 (Sec'y, Aug. 3, 1989)(order of remand), I have taken this amount into account in determining whether the settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable.

   Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED:

1) That the settlement agreement attached hereto be approved.

2) That the claim of Daniel Lawn against the above-named respondent be dismissed with prejudice.

      ALEXANDER KARST
      Administrative Law Judge

Dated: April 28, 1998
AK:rs

NOTICE: This Recommended Decision and Order of the Administrative Law Judge will become the final agency decision unless an appeal is filed with the Administrative Review Board within 10 business days of the date of this order at the offices of the Administrative Review Board, United States Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20210. 29 C.F.R. § 24.8; 63 Fed. Reg. 6614 (Feb. 9, 1998).