Beamer v. Automatic Rolls of Virginia, 94-STA-41 (ALJ Oct. 28, 1994)

May 9, 2009
DOL Home > OALJ Home > Whistleblower Collection
USDOL/OALJ Reporter
Beamer v. Automatic Rolls of Virginia, 94-STA-41 (ALJ Oct. 28, 1994)


.............................:
In The Matter of             :  DATE ISSUED:  October 28, 1994
                             :
KIM L. BEAMER,               : 
       Complainant           :  CASE NO:      94-STA-41
                             :
     v.                      :
                             :
AUTOMATIC ROLLS OF VIRGINIA, :
       Respondent            :
.............................:


         FINAL ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT


    This case arises under the employee protection provisions of
the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982, 49 U.S.C.
2305. The case was set for hearing on October 12, 1994, but the
hearing was canceled because the parties had agreed to settle the
matter. On October 14, 1994, the parties filed an executed
Settlement Agreement and Release for approval pursuant to 29 CFR
1978.111(d)(2). A supplement to the agreement was filed by
Complainant's counsel on October 26, 1994, by telecopy.
    I make two observations. Fist, although the agreement appears
to include the settlement of matters arising under various laws,
my review of the agreement is limited to determining whether it
is a fair, adequate, and reasonable settlement of Complainant's
case under the Act. See Ratliff v. Airco Gases,, Case No.
93- STA-00005, Sec. Ord.,June 25, 1993. Second, I note the
parties' appreciation of the fact that the submissions become
part of the record of the case and are subject to disclosure
pursuant to a valid request under the Freedom of Information Act,
5 U.S.C. 552.
    Both parties are represented by counsel. The Settlement
Agreement is signed by the parties and approved by their counsel.
Upon review of the terms of the agreement and the case record, I
find the agreement fair, adequate, and reasonable. Accordingly,
the Settlement Agreement and Release is approved and the
complaint herein is DISMISSED with prejudice.
    SO ORDERED. 
[PAGE 2]
                                    

                                        Nicodemo De Gregorio
                                        Administrative LawJudge