DATE: June 20, 1995
CASE NOS. 94-TSC-9
95-TSC-1
IN THE MATTER OF
RICHARD GREEN,
COMPLAINANT,
v.
MANAGEMENT ANALYSIS COMPANY("MAC"),
PACIFIC ATLANTIC TECHNICAL SERVICES
COMPANY("PATSCO"), and MAC TECHNICAL
SERVICES COMPANY,
RESPONDENTS.
BEFORE: THE SECRETARY OF LABOR
FINAL ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT
AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT[1]
This case arises under the employee protection provisions of
the Toxic Substances Control Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2622 (1988),
the Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1367 (1988),
the Solid Waste Disposal Act, 42 U.S.C. § 6971 (1988) and
the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7622 (1988). The parties
submitted a Settlement Agreement and General Release seeking
approval of the settlement and dismissal of the complaint with
prejudice. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued a decision
on May 31, 1995, recommending that the settlement be approved. The request for approval is based on an agreement entered
into by the parties, therefore, I must review it to determine
whether the terms are a fair, adequate and reasonable settlement
of the complaint. 24 C.F.R. § 24.6. Macktal v.
Secretary of Labor, 923 F.2d 1150, 1153-54 (5th Cir.
1991); Thompson v. U.S.
[PAGE 2]
Dep't of Labor, 885 F.2d 551, 556 (9th Cir. 1989);
Fuchko and Yunker v. Georgia Power Co., Case Nos. 89-
ERA-9, 89-ERA-10, Sec. Order, Mar. 23, 1989, slip op. at 1-2.
The agreement appears to encompass the settlement of matters
arising under various laws, beyond those enumerated above.
See ¶¶ 3, 6 and 10. 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 the Complainant's allegations the
Respondent violated the above enumerated Acts.
Paragraph 8 contains
language which provides that the Complainant shall keep the
terms of the Settlement Agreement confidential. I interpret this
language as not preventing Complainant, either voluntarily or
pursuant to an order or subpoena, from communicating with, or
providing information to, State and Federal government agencies
about suspected violations of law involving the Respondents.
See Corder v. Bechtel Energy Corp., Sec. Order, Feb. 9,
1994, slip op. at 6-8 (finding void as contrary to public policy
a settlement agreement provision prohibiting the complainant from
communicating with federal or state agencies concerning possible
violations of law). The parties' submissions, including the agreement become
part of the record of the case and are subject to the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552 (1988). FOIA
requires Federal agencies to disclose requested records unless
they are exempt from disclosure under the Act.[2] See Debose
v. Carolina Power and Light Co., Case No. 92-
ERA-14, Ord. Disapproving Settlement and Remanding Case, Feb. 7,
1994, slip op. at 2-3 and cases there cited.
Additionally, Paragraph 17 provides that the laws of
California shall govern this agreement. This provision is
interpreted as not limiting the authority of the Secretary or the
United States district court under the applicable statutes and
regulations.
I find that the agreement, as here construed, is a fair,
adequate and reasonable settlement of the complaint.
Accordingly, I APPROVE the agreement and DISMISS THE COMPLAINT
WITH PREJUDICE. Settlement Agreement at paragraph 7.
SO ORDERED.
ROBERT B. REICH
Secretary of Labor
Washington, D.C.
[ENDNOTES]
[1] Complaints against other respondents covered by the
captioned case numbers, Alyeska Pipeline Service Company, Arco
Alaska, Inc., Arctic Slope Inspections Services, and Udelhoven
Oil System Services are not affected by this Final Decision.
[2] Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 70.26(b), submitters may
designate specific information as confidential commercial
information to be handled as provided in the regulations. When
FOIA requests are received for such information, the Department
of Labor will notify the submitter promptly, 29 C.F.R. §
70.26(c); the submitter will be given a reasonable amount of time
to state its objections to disclosure, 29 C.F.R. § 70.26(e);
and the submitter will be notified if a decision is made to
disclose the information, 29 C.F.R. § 70.26(f). If the
information is withheld and a suit is filed by the requester to
compel disclosure, the submitter will be notified, 29 C.F.R.
§70.26(h).