DATE:   August 31, 1992
CASE NO. 91-ERA-17


IN THE MATTER OF

WAYNE T. REID,

          COMPLAINANT,

     v.

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY,

          RESPONDENT.


BEFORE:  THE SECRETARY OF LABOR


                      ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT AND
                    DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE

     This case arises under the employee protection provision of
the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended (ERA), 42
U.S.C. § 5851 (1988), and was consolidated for hearing with
Case Nos. 91-ERA-16 and 91-ERA-18.  The Complainant in this case
waived the statutory deadline for a final order by the Secretary. 
In a March 28, 1991, Order of Continuance, the ALJ granted the
parties' joint motion to continue the hearing and stay all other
proceedings in this case and No. 91-ERA-16.  The Secretary issued
on March 4, 1992, a Final Order Approving Settlement and
dismissing Case No. 91-ERA-16.  The Secretary issued on April 19,
1991, a Decision and Order Approving Settlement and dismissing
Case No. 91-ERA-18.  
     On July 8, 1992, the parties submitted in this case a Joint
Motion for Dismissal with an attached Memorandum of Understanding
and Agreement, dated June 15, 1992, indicating that Complainant
agreed to a settlement of his complaint against the TVA, and that
the parties jointly requested dismissal of the complaint with
prejudice.  Because this request for dismissal is based on a
settlement agreement entered into by the parties, I must review
it to determine whether the terms are a fair, adequate, and
reasonable settlement of the complaint.  42 U.S.C. 

[PAGE 2]
§ 5851(b)(2)(A); Macktal v. Secretary of Labor, 923
F.2d 1150, 1153-54 (5th Cir. 1991); Thompson v. United States
Department of Labor, 885 F.2d 551, 556 (9th Cir. 1989);
Fuchko and Yunker v. Georgia Power Co., Case Nos. 89-ERA-
9, 89-ERA-10, Sec. Order, Mar. 23, 1989, slip op. at 1-2.  
     This settlement agreement may encompass matters arising
under various laws only one of which is the ERA.  As my authority
over settlement agreements is limited to such statutes as are
within my jurisdiction and is defined by the applicable statute,
see Goese v. Ebasco Services, Inc., Case No. 88-
ERA-25, Sec. Order Approving Settlement and Dismissing Case, Dec.
8, 1988; Poulos v. Ambassador Fuel Oil Co., Inc., Case No.
86-CAA-1, Sec. Order, Nov. 2, 1987, and cases cited therein, I
have limited my review to determining whether the terms of the
agreements are fair, adequate, and reasonable to settle
Complainant's allegation that Respondent violated the ERA.
     Upon review of the terms of the agreement and the record in
this case, I find that the agreement is fair, adequate and
reasonable, and therefore, I approve the agreement. [1] 
Accordingly, this case is DISMISSED with prejudice, as requested
in the Joint Motion for Dismissal.  
     SO ORDERED.

                              LYNN MARTIN
                              Secretary of Labor

Washington, D.C.


OAA:CHIGGINS:kmp:February 20, 1996
S-4309:523-9728


[ENDNOTES]
           
[1]   Paragraph 7 provides for confidentiality of the terms of
Complainant's awards, except with family, attorneys, and as
required by legal process.  I note that the parties' submissions
become part of the record in the case and that the Freedom of
Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552 (1988), requires federal
agencies to disclose requested records unless they are exempt
from disclosure under the Act.  See Hamka v. The
Detroit Edison Co., Case No. 88-ERA-26, Sec. Order to Submit
Attachments, Dec. 9, 1991, slip op. at 2, n.1.