DATE:  October 17, 1994
CASE NO. 92-STA-0008


IN THE MATTER OF

TERRY W. TANKERSLEY,

          COMPLAINANT,

     v.

TRIPLE CROWN SERVICES, INC., AND
NORTH AMERICAN VAN LINES, INC.,

          RESPONDENTS.


BEFORE:   THE SECRETARY OF LABOR


                         FINAL DECISION AND ORDER

     This case, which arises under the employee protection
provision of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982
(STAA), 49 U.S.C. app. § 2305 (1988), is before me for
review of recommended decisions issued by the Administrative Law
Judge (ALJ) on June 14, 1994, and June 21, 1994.
     In an earlier decision I remanded this case to the ALJ for
further proceedings.  Decision and Order of Remand, dated
February 18, 1993.  The ALJ had recommended that an adjudicatory
settlement be approved and I disagreed, explaining:
     Because this record contains no written settlement
     signed by all parties, or other memorialization of an
     entire agreement to which each party has consented,
     Respondent's Motion for Approval of Adjudicatory
     Settlement must be denied.  Cf. Hasan v.
     Nuclear Power Services, Inc., Case No. 86-ERA-24,
     Sec. Ord. to Show Cause, Mar. 21, 1991, slip op. at 2-
     3, Sec. Fin. Dec. and Ord., June 26, 1991,
     petition denied, No. 91-4642  (5th Cir.
     May 7, 1992).
At page 5. [1] 
     On remand the ALJ received additional evidence and 
[PAGE 2]
concluded, based on the total circumstances and evidence, that
the parties reached a fully consummated agreement, which is
binding and should be enforced.  See ALJ's June 14
decision at 5-6.  In the alternative, the ALJ recommends that
Respondent's motion for summary decision be granted and that
Complainant's case be dismissed.  See ALJ's June 14
decision at 30-34, as corrected by his June 21 decision.
     Upon review of the entire record and the ALJ's thorough
recommendations, I agree that this record documents the material
terms of an adjudicatory settlement between the parties, and I
approve them to the extent they settle matters arising under the
STAA.  Complainant expressly authorized his attorney to settle
this case, [2]  and when his attorney accepted
Respondent's offer by telephone on July 31, 1992, a binding
agreement between Complainant and Respondent existed.  Petty
v. Timken Corp., 849 F.2d 130, 132-33 (4th Cir. 1988);
Taylor v. Gordon Flesch Co., Inc., 793 F.2d 858, 862 (7th
Cir. 1986); Gilbert v. United States, 479 F.2d 1267, 1268
(2d Cir. 1973).  At that time the parties reached an unequivocal
agreement on all material terms, as memorialized in Respondent's
Appendix 6, dated August 18, 1994; Complainant's signed
statement, dated August 7, 1992; and his attorney's motion to
withdraw, dated August 10, 1992.  See, e.g.,
Brock v. Scheuner Corp., 841 F.2d 151, 153-54 (6th Cir.
1988) (finding that parties agreed on material terms before
agreement formally reduced to writing). [3]   At most,
Complainant appears to have had second thoughts about the level
of his recovery, which does not justify setting aside an
otherwise valid agreement.  Asst. Sec. and Champlin v.
Florilli Corp., Case No. 91-STA-0007, Sec. Order, May 20,
1992, slip op. at 6; Petty, 849 F.2d at 133; Glass v.
Rock Island Refining Corp., 788 F.2d 450, 454-55 (7th Cir.
1986).  
     The terms of the agreement constitute a fair, adequate, and
reasonable settlement of Complainant's allegations that
Respondent violated the STAA, and I, therefore, approve the
settlement.  E.g., Davis v. Kimstock, Inc., Case
No. 90-STA-8, Sec. Order, Nov. 30, 1990, slip op. at 2.  Because
I approve the parties' settlement, I decline to address the ALJ's
alternative recommended disposition of the case.
     Accordingly, this case is DISMISSED without prejudice.

     SO ORDERED.


                              ROBERT B. REICH
                              Secretary of Labor

Washington, D.C.


[ENDNOTES]
           
[1]   Ordinarily, under the applicable regulations, an ALJ may
issue a final order of dismissal where the parties agree to an
adjudicatory settlement.  Thompson v. G & W Transportation
Co., Inc., Case No. 90-STA-25, Sec. Order, Oct. 24, 1990; 29
C.F.R. § 1978.111(d)(2) (1992).  In view of the circumstances 
and disagreement here, however, I have accepted jurisdiction and
review of the ALJ's rulings.

[2]   Given Complainant's admission on August 7, 1992, that he
instructed his attorney to "settle the claim for what you can
get," I accept the ALJ's summary ruling that counsel was
expressly authorized to make a settlement.  See ALJ's
decision, dated June 14, 1994, at page 3; cf.
Complainant's affidavit, dated November 4, 1992, at page 3.

[3]   The record also contains numerous relevant documents,
including Respondent's Telecopy Cover Sheet, dated August 6,
1992, and Respondent's letter to Complainant's counsel, dated
July 22, 1992, at page 3.  Specifically, the parties agreed to
settle all disputes for $10,000.00 and NAVL's release of damages
it incurred in repossessing Mr. Tankersley's tractor.