Office of Administrative Law Judges Seven Parkway Center - Room 290 Pittsburgh, PA
15220
(412) 644-5754 (412) 644-5005 (FAX)
DATE ISSUED: March 14, 2000
CASE NO.: 2000-STA-6
In the Matter of
VALMORE CLOUTIER, JR.,
Complainant
v.
NORTHEAST FREIGHT SYSTEMS,
Respondent
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 at 29 C.F.R. Part 1978 (1989). The parties, on March 13, 2000, filed a Settlement
Agreement ("Agreement") in accordance with 29 C.F.R. §§ 1978.111(d)(2).
The Agreement resolves the controversy arising from the complaint of Valmore Cloutier, Jr. under the
statute. The Settlement Agreement is signed by the complainant and the employer.
The Settlement Agreement provides that complainant releases respondent from
claims arising under the Surface Transportation Act as well as under various other laws. This review
is limited to whether the terms of the settlement are a fair, adequate and reasonable
settlement of complainant's allegations that respondent violated the STAA. Kidd v. Sharron
Motor Lines, Inc., 87-STA-2 (Sec'y July 30, 1987); Poulos v. Ambassador Fuel Oil Co.,
Case No. 86-CAA-1, Sec. Ord., Nov. 2, 1987, slip op. at 2. As was stated in Poulos v.
Ambassador Fuel Oil Co., Inc., Case No. 86-CAA-1, Sec. Order, (Nov. 2, 1987):
[Page 2]
The Secretary's authority over the settlement agreement is limited to such statutes as are within [the
Secretary's] jurisdiction and is defined by the applicable statute. See Aurich v. Consolidated
Edison Company of New York, Inc., Case No. 86-CAA-2, Secretary's Order Approving
Settlement, issued July 29, 1987; Chase v. Buncombe County, N.C., Case No. 85-SWD-4,
Secretary's Order on Remand, issued November 3, 1986.
I have therefore limited my review of this Agreement to determining whether
the terms thereof are a fair, adequate and reasonable settlement of Mr. Cloutier's allegation that
respondent had violated the STAA.
The Agreement provides that the complainant has not instituted a civil action,
under the STAA, in a forum other than the U.S. Department of Labor, for relief permitted under
§§ 31105 of the Act as a result of the company's actions in this case and that if he does
he agrees he will not be entitled to any relief. That paragraph could possibly be construed as a waiver
by complainant 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.
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). The parties must submit for review an entire agreement to which each party has
consented. Tankersley v. Triple Crown Services, Inc. 92- STA-8 (Sec'y Feb. 18, 1993). The
agreement must be reviewed to determine whether the terms are a 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. This Order approving the settlement is final since all parties have joined in the
Agreement. Swischer v. Gerber Childrenswear, Inc., 93-STA-1 (Sec-y Jan. 4, 1993).
I find the overall settlement terms to be reasonable but some clarification is
necessary. The Agreement contains a confidentiality provision limiting all disclosures except under
certain stated circumstances. It has been held in a number of cases with respect to confidentiality
provisions in Settlement Agreements that the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552,
et seq. (1988) (FOIA), requires federal agencies to disclose requested documents unless they
are exempt from disclosure. Faust v. Chemical Leaman Tank Lines, Inc., Case Nos. 92-
SWD-2 and 93-STA-15, ARB Final Order Approving Settlement and Dismissing Complaint, March
31, 1998. The records in this case are agency records which must be made available for public
inspection and copying under the Freedom of Information Act. However, the employer will be
provided a pre-disclosure notification giving the employer the opportunity to challenge any such
potential disclosure. In the event the Agreement is disclosed, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552,
et seq, the complainant's obligation, under paragraph 6, would then be void, leaving the
remainder of the Agreement in effect.
[Page 3]
The Agreement also notes at Paragraph 7 that it is governed and interpreted in
accordance with the laws of the State of Massachusetts. That provision is interpreted as not limiting
the authority of the Secretary or any U.S. District Court to seek or grant appropriate relief under any
applicable federal whistleblower statute or regulation. Phillips v. Citizens Assoc. for Sound
Energy, Case No. 91-ERA-25, Sec. Final Order of Dismissal (Nov. 4, 1991).
As so construed, I find the terms of the Agreement to be fair, adequate and
reasonable, and therefore approve it. Accordingly, the complaint filed by Valmore Cloutier, Jr. is
hereby dismissed with prejudice.