DATE:  February 22, 1994
CASE NOS. 84-ERA-9
          84-ERA-10
          84-ERA-11
          84-ERA-12


IN THE MATTER OF

DONALD RICHTER,
WILLIAM J. JOHNSON,
RONALD D. LEHMAN, [1] 

          COMPLAINANTS,

     v.

BALDWIN ASSOCIATES,

     and

ILLINOIS POWER COMPANY,

          RESPONDENTS.


BEFORE:  THE SECRETARY OF LABOR

                     FINAL ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT
                         AND DISMISSING COMPLAINTS

     Before me for review is the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ)
Order of Dismissal issued on May 17, 1988, in this case arising
under the employee protection provision of the Energy
Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended (ERA), 42 U.S.C. §
5851 (1988).  The ALJ granted dismissal of the complaint with
prejudice based on his review and approval of a Settlement
Stipulation entered into by the parties.  The Settlement
Stipulation was not made a part of the case record, however, "for
the reason that the parties in good faith have agreed that such
documents remain confidential."  See Order of Dismissal at
1.

[PAGE 2]
     On March 22, 1989, the Secretary issued an Order to Submit
Settlement Agreement providing the parties thirty days to submit
a copy of the settlement agreement for review by the Secretary,
as required pursuant to Section 5851(b)(2)(A).  The parties
complied and submitted a copy of the fully executed Settlement
Stipulation dated April 22, 1988.  See Complainants'
counsel's letters of April 5, 1989 and May 5, 1989; Respondent
counsel's letter of April 7, 1989.  Complainants' counsel
asserted that Respondent had complied in all respects to the
Settlement Stipulation.  Respondent counsel requested that the
Settlement Stipulation not made be a part of the record since a
term of the agreement was that it be kept confidential. 
Alternatively, Respondent requested that the Settlement
Stipulation be placed under seal.  Resp. letter of April 7, 1989.
     Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 5851(b)(2)(A) and 29 C.F.R. 
§ 24.6(a), I have the authority and responsibility to review
the terms of any settlement agreement which purports to settle an
ERA complaint before the Secretary. [2]   See 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); Hamka v. Detroit Edison
Company, Case No. 88-ERA-26, Sec. Ord. to Submit
Attachments, Dec. 9, 1991, slip op. at 2; Macktal v.
Brown & Root, Inc., Case No. 86-ERA-23, Sec. Ord.
Disapproving Settlement and Remanding Case, Oct. 13, 1993, slip
op. at 2-3.  Contrary to Respondent's request, the copy of the settlement
agreement submitted for review becomes a part of the record in
the case.  5 U.S.C. § 556(e) (1988); Plumlee v.
Alyeska Pipeline Service Co., Case Nos. 92-TSC-7, 10; 92-WPC-
6, 7, 8, 10, Sec. Final Ord. Approving Settlements and Dismissing
Cases with Prejudice, Aug. 6, 1993, slip op. at 5-6; Davis v.
Valley View Ferry Authority, Case No. 93-WPC-1, Sec. Final
Ord. Approving Settlement and Dismissing Complaint, June 28,
1993, slip op. at 2, n.1; Hamka, slip op. at 2, n.1;
Thompson v. The Detroit Edison Co., Case No. 87-ERA-2,
Sec. Ord. to Show Cause, April 26, 1990, slip op. at 5, n.3.
     The terms of the Settlement Stipulation must be carefully
reviewed to determine if they are fair, adequate and reasonable. 
Fuchko and Yunker v. Georgia Power Co., Case Nos. 89-ERA-
9, 10, Sec. Ord. to Submit Settlement Agreement, March 23, 1989,
slip op. at 2.  I note that the Settlement Stipulation appears to
encompass the settlement of matters arising under various laws,
only one of which is the ERA. See Paragraph 3.  For the
reasons set forth in Poulos v. Ambassador Fuel Oil Co.,
Inc., Case No. 86-CAA-1, Sec. Ord., Nov. 2, 1987, slip op. at
2, I have limited my review to determining whether the terms of
the settlement are fair, adequate and reasonable to settle
Complainants' allegations that Respondents violated the ERA.

[PAGE 3]
     With respect to the confidentiality provision in Paragraph 8
of the Settlement Stipulation, I point out that the Secretary has
concluded that settlement agreements, being a part of the record,
are subject to the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552 (1988), which requires agencies to
disclose requested documents unless they are exempt from
disclosure.  See Corder v. Bechtel Energy Corp.,
Case No. 88-ERA-9, Sec. Ord., Feb. 9, 1994, slip op. at 4-5; Debose v.
Carolina Power and Light Co., Case No. 92-ERA-14, Sec. Ord.
Disapproving Settlement and Remanding Case, Feb. 7, 1994, slip
op. at 2-4; Plumlee, slip op. at 6.  Respondent's request
that the settlement be placed under seal is accordingly rejected.
See Corder, slip op. at 5. 
     Upon careful review, I find that the terms of the Settlement
Stipulation are fair, adequate and reasonable to settle
Complainants' allegations that Respondents violated the ERA. 
Accordingly, I approve the Settlement Stipulation and dismiss the
complaints with prejudice.  
     SO ORDERED.



                              ROBERT B. REICH
                              Secretary of Labor

Washington, D.C.


[ENDNOTES]
           
[1]  As explained in footnote 1, page 1 of the Secretary's Order
to Submit Settlement Agreement of March 22, 1989, the caption has
been corrected to reflect the dismissal of Dale Murphy's
complaint.

[2]  It is well established that the Department of Labor does not
simply provide a forum for private parties to litigate their
employment discrimination suits.  Protected whistleblowing under
the ERA may expose not just private harms, but health and safety
hazards to the public, and the Secretary represents the public
interest in keeping channels of information open by assuring that
settlements adequately protect whistleblowers.  See
Hamka, slip op. at 3, n.2.