U.S. Department of Labor Office of Administrative Law Judges
800 K Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001-8002
Date: FEB 17 1993
Case No.: 90-ERA-10
In the Matter of:
Mansour Guity,
Complainant
v.
Tennessee Valley Authority,
Respondent
Before: John M. Vittone
Deputy Chief Judge
NOTICE OF REASSIGNMENT,
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE,
AND ORDER TO PROVIDE CITATION OF LEGAL
AUTHORITY
Notice of Reassignment
This case has been reassigned to Deputy Chief
Administrative Law Judge John M. Vittone. All further submissions
in this matter should be directed to Judge Vittone at this
address:
Deputy Chief Judge John M. Vittone
Office of Administrative Law Judges
Suite 40ON
800 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001
Status of Complaint and Pending Motions
Background
On September 5, 1990, Administrative Law Judge
Rudolf L. Jansen granted a Joint Motion for Continuance of the
hearing in this matter based on the Complainant's mental
condition. The motion was based in part on the indefinite stay
placed on the Complainants complaint by the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee in Case No.
3-87-843.
On December 11, 1990 Judge Jansen set a hearing
[Page 2]
date of April 30, 1991. On January 25, 1991, however, Judge
Jansen granted a second Joint Motion for Continuance in this
matter. The second Joint Motion was again premised on the
Complainant's mental condition, but included this time a waiver
of "all time constraints required by the law and/or
regulations." The Motion indicated that the parties agreed
to a continuance until ninety days after the proceedings of the
District Court in No. 3-87-843 have been completed.1
1The LEXIS Genfed
library was checked on February 3, 1993. The check indicated that
No. 3-87-843, if disposed by the Federal District Court, was not
placed on the LEXIS service.
2It is noted
for purposes of comparison that the Secretary of Labor has
repeatedly ruled that confidentiality provisions of whistleblower
settlement agreements do not prevent the settlement agreement
from becoming part of the administrative record, which is subject
to the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552, which
requires federal agencies to disclose requested records unless
they are exempt from disclosure under the Act. See, e.g.,
Hamka v. The Detroit Edison Co., 88-ERA-26 (Sec'y Dec. 9,
1991) (order to submit attachments); McCuistion v. Tennessee
Valley Authority, 90-ERA-44 (Sec'y Aug. 31, 1992); Reid v.
Tennessee Valley Authority, 91-ERA-17 (Sec'y Aug. 31, 1992);
Smith v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 92-ERA-23 and 24
(Sec'y Aug. 31, 1992). See also Vogel v. Florida Power
Corp., 90-ERA-49 (Sec'y Mar. 12, 1991), in which the
Secretary refused to seal the record in regard to a settlement
agreement where the parties did not present any reason for
sealing the record.