ARB CASE NOS. 00-036
01-023
ALJ CASE NOS. 98-CAA-12
00-CAA-12
00-CAA-13
00-CAA-17
DATE: January 31, 2001
In the Matter of:
DAVID F. HOCH,
COMPLAINANT,
v.
CLARK COUNTY HEALTH DISTRICT,
RESPONDENT.
BEFORE: THE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD
Appearances: For the Complainant:
Richard Segerblom, Esq.,
Las Vegas, Nevada
For the Respondent:
Mark J. Ricciardi, Esq., Donna L. Strenicki, Esq., Ricciardi Law Group, Las Vegas, Nevada
FINAL ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT
AND DISMISSING APPEALS WITH PREJUDICE
These cases arose when Complainant David F. Hoch filed several
complaints alleging that his employer, Respondent Clark County Health District
("District"), violated the whistleblower protection provisions of the Clean Air Act,
42 U.S.C. §7622 (1994)(CAA).
[Page 2]
The District appealed the Administrative Law Judge's [Recommended]
Decision and Order in Hoch v. Clark County Health District, 1998-CAA-12 (Jan. 18,
2000), and the Supplemental Order Awarding Attorneys' Fees, 1998-CAA-12 (Mar. 15, 2000),
to the Administrative Review Board (ARB) pursuant to 29 C.F.R. §24.8 (2000). The ARB
docketed this appeal as ARB Case No. 00-036.
The parties subsequently filed a global settlement agreement of ARB Case
No. 00-036 and three cases pending before a second Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), 2000-
CAA-012, 2000-CAA-0013, and 2000-CAA-0017. Simultaneously, Hoch and the District
submitted a "Joint Stipulation and Request for Certification to the Administrative Review
Board" with the second ALJ requesting her to "certify [2000-CAA-012, 2000-CAA-
0013, 2000-CAA-0017] to the [ARB] for purposes of settlement." Order Canceling
Hearing and Recommended Order of Dismissal, 2000-CAA-012, 2000-CAA-0013, 2000-CAA-
0017 (Dec. 27, 2000) (Order of Dismissal). The ALJ construed the parties' stipulation as a
request for voluntary dismissal of the cases pending before her "without prejudice to their
reinstatement in the event that the parties are unable to reach either a 'global settlement' or a
settlement in the case pending before the ARB that would render the instant cases moot."
Order of Dismissal at 2. The District filed a petition for review of the ALJ's Order of Dismissal
pursuant to 29 C.F.R. §24.8, and the ARB docketed the appeal as ARB Case No. 01-023.
The parties subsequently filed an "Amendment to Settlement Agreement."
The CAA requires the Secretary of Labor to enter into or otherwise
approve a settlement. See 42 U.S.C. §7622(b)(2)(A). The Secretary, in turn, has
delegated to this Board her authority to approve settlements of cases that are pending before the
Board at the time the parties enter into the settlement. Secretary's Order 2-96, 61 Fed. Reg.
19978 (May 3, 1996); 29 C.F.R. §24.8.
The Board requires that all parties requesting settlement approval of cases
arising under the CAA provide the settlement documentation for any other claims arising from
the same factual circumstances forming the basis of the federal claim, or to certify that the parties
entered into no other such settlement agreements. Beliveau v. Naval Undersea Warfare
Center, ALJ Case Nos. 97-SDW-1, 97-SDW-4, 97-SDW-6; ARB Case Nos. 00-073, 01-
017, 01-019, slip. op. at 2 (Nov. 30, 2000). Accordingly, the parties have certified that the
Agreement constitutes the entire and only settlement agreement with respect to Hoch's claims.
Settlement Agreement at 6, ¶14.
Review of the Settlement Agreement reveals that it is intended to settle
matters under laws other than the CAA. Settlement Agreement at 3, ¶7. Our authority
to review settlement agreements is limited to the statutes within our jurisdiction and is defined
by the applicable statutes. Beliveau, slip. op. at 2; Pawlowski v. Hewlett-Packard
Co., ALJ Case No. 97-TSC-3; ARB Case No. 99-089,slip op. at 2 (May
5, 2000). Therefore, we have restricted our review of the Agreement, as amended, to
ascertaining whether its terms fairly, adequately and reasonably settle the environmental
whistleblower cases over which we have jurisdiction. Id.
[Page 3]
We find the overall settlement terms to be reasonable, but include our
interpretation of one of its provisions. Paragraph 13 of the agreement provides that the
Agreement will be "construed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the state of
Nevada." We construe this provision to except the authority of the Administrative Review
Board and any Federal court which shall be governed in all respects by the laws and regulations
of the United States. Pawlowski, slip op. at 3. As so construed, we find the
agreement is a fair, adequate and reasonable settlement of the complaint. Accordingly, we
APPROVE the Agreement and DISMISS the appeals with prejudice.