skip navigational links United States Department of Labor
May 9, 2009        
DOL Home > OALJ Home > Whistleblower Collection
DOL Home USDOL/OALJ Reporter
Bixby v. State of New Mexico, Office of the Commissioner of Public Lands, 94-TSC-1 (Sec'y Sept. 22, 1994)


DATE:  September 22, 1994
CASE NO. 94-TSC-1


IN THE MATTER OF

KEVIN BIXBY,

          COMPLAINANT,

     v.

STATE OF NEW MEXICO, OFFICE OF THE
COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC LANDS,

          RESPONDENT.


BEFORE:   THE SECRETARY OF LABOR


                     FINAL ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT
                         AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT

     On August 16, 1994, I issued an Order to Submit Settlement
Agreement in this case arising under the Clean Air Act (CAA), 
42 U.S.C. § 7622 (1988); the Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA), 15 U.S.C. § 2622 (1988); the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA),
42 U.S.C. § 9610 (1988); and the implementing regulations at 29 C.F.R.
Part 24 (1993).  In response, the parties promptly submitted a
fully executed Release, dated May 11, 1994.
     The agreement encompasses the settlement of matters arising
under various laws.  See Release at pages 1-2.  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 of the agreement to determining
whether its terms are a fair, adequate, and reasonable settlement
of this complaint that Respondent violated the CAA, the TSCA, and
the CERCLA.
     Paragraph 2 at page 1 of the Release could be construed as a
waiver by the Complainant of any causes of action he may have 

[PAGE 2] which arise in the future. As the Secretary has held in prior cases, see Johnson v. Transco Products, Inc., Case No. 85-ERA-7, Sec. Ord., Aug. 8, 1985, such a provision must be interpreted as limited to the right to sue in the future on claims or causes of action arising out of facts or any set of facts occurring before the date of the agreement. See also Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., 415 U.S. 36, 51-52 (1974); Rogers v. General Electric Co., 781 F.2d 452, 454 (5th Cir 1986). I find that the agreement, as so construed, is a fair, adequate, and reasonable settlement of the complaint. Accordingly, I APPROVE the agreement and DISMISS THE COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE. Release at 2. SO ORDERED. ROBERT B. REICH Secretary of Labor Washington, D.C.



Phone Numbers