U.S. Department of Labor
Office of Administrative Law Judges
1111 20th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
CASE NO. 85-ERA-5
In the Matter of
SHARON M. HANLEY
Complainant
v.
YOH SECURITY, INCORPORATED
Defendant
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
This matter has its genesis in a complaint filed pursuant
to the Energy Reorganization Act by Sharon M. Hanley, the
complainant herein, on October 1, 1984, against the defendant,
Yoh Security, Incorporated. The complaint alleges, in essence,
that the defendant discriminated against the complainant by
forcing her to resign her position with the defendant in
circumstances in which she was a protected employee engaging
in a protected activity within the meaning of the Energy
Reorganization Act.
By letter dated November 8, 1984, the Wage and Hour
Division of the Employment Standards Administration, U.S.
[Page 2]
Department of Labor, found for the complainant and by telegram
dated November 19, 1984, the defendant appealed to the Office
of Administrative Law Judges.
Thereafter, this matter was duly scheduled and noticed
for hearing on December 6, 1984. The complainant appeared,
pro se, at the hearing and the defendant was represented by
counsel. At the outset of the hearing, counsel for the
defendant presented to the Court a one-page document captioned
settlement agreement and mutual general release (joint
Complainant/Defendant Exhibit 1), and indicated to the Court that
the document in question was designed to settle the issues
presented by this litigation on a basis agreeable to both
parties. The complainant stated that she had read the
document, she understood its contents and that she was willing
to accept the terms set forth in the settlement document in
satisfaction of her complaint. (Tr. 8-10) The Court then
indicated that prior to dismissal of this matter, the defendant
would be required to submit two additional documents, together
with a statement indicating that the settlement agreement had
been signed by both parties. (Tr. 11-12) By letter dated
December 12, 1984, counsel for the defendant supplied the
required documents, indicated that both parties had signed
the settlement agreement, and that the agreed monetary payment
had been forwarded to the complainant. The defendant then
requested that the complaint be dismissed.
In view of the foregoing in accordance with the agreement
of both parties expressed at the hearing, and acting pursuant
to 29 C.F.R. § 24.5(e)(4), the instant proceeding will be
dismissed.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
The proceeding in 85-ERA-5 be and it hereby is dismissed.
