Rudolf v. Pryslak Transportation, Inc., 1999-STA-4 (ALJ July 23, 1999)

U.S. Department of Labor

Office of Administrative Law Judges 2600 Mt. Ephraim Avenue Camden, NJ 08104 (856) 757-5312 (856) 757-5403 (FAX)

DATE: July 23, 1999

CASE NO.: 1999-STA-00004

In the Matter of

JOSEPH RUDOLPH
    Complainant

    v.

PRYSLAK TRANSPORTATION, INC.
    Respondent

Appearances:

    Paul O. Taylor, Esq.
       For Complainant

    Stuart J. Alterman, Esq.
       For Respondent

Before: Robert D. Kaplan
    Administrative Law Judge

   This matter involves a complaint filed by Complainant under the Surface Transportation Act, 49 U.S.C. § 31105 (West 1997) and its implementing regulations, 29 C.F.R. Part 1978. A hearing before me commenced in New York, New York on March 30, 1999, but was concluded without the presentation of evidence because the parties announced that they had reached agreement on the terms of a settlement of the case.

   Subsequently, the parties reduced their agreement to a written "Settlement Agreement" which has been executed by Complainant and Respondent's president, as well as by counsel for each of the parties. I received the executed Settlement Agreement on July 22, 1999.

   The Settlement Agreement provides, inter alia, that Respondent shall pay Complainant a sum certain in settlement and that Complainant is responsible to pay his counsel's attorney fee in the stated amount. Counsel for Complainant has submitted a statement of his time and costs expended in this matter, which I find are reasonable and substantiate the sum he is to be paid pursuant to the Settlement Agreement.

   The Settlement Agreement contains a confidentiality provision which states, in part:

    6. Confidentiality. The parties agree to keep the terms of this agreement confidential however Rudolph communicate with, and provide information to, any state or federal government agency, or may be compelled to provide information pursuant to legal process.

The above-quoted portion of the confidentiality provision appears to have omitted the word "may" between the words "Rudolph" and "communicate," and therefore should be construed to read:

Rudolph may communicate with, and provide information to, any state or federal government agency ....

I find that, when properly construed, the above-quoted portion of the Settlement Agreement does not violate public policy or conflict with the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

   I further find that the remainder of the confidentiality provision in paragraph 6 of the Settlement Agreement does not violate public policy or conflict with the FOIA.

   In addition, the confidentiality provision states, in part:

It is the intent of the parties that this confidentiality provision be as strong as applicable law shall permit.

I construe this language to denote that disclosure of the terms of the Settlement Agreement pursuant to FOIA shall be limited under FOIA's "confidential commercial information" exclusion. 29 C.F.R. §70.26.

   Finally, I find that the Settlement Agreement is a fair, adequate and reasonable resolution of the complaint.

   The Settlement Agreement executed by the parties is approved.

   The complaint is dismissed.

      Robert D. Kaplan
      Administrative Law Judge

Dated: July 23, 1999
Camden, New Jersey