September 21, 2008 DOL Home > OALJ Home > Whistleblower Collection |
USDOL/OALJ Reporter Administrative Review Board 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20210
ARB CASE NO. 98-012
In the Matter of:
JAMES O. THORSEN,
v.
THE UNIVERSITY OF THE SOUTH,
BEFORE: THE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD
AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT This case arises under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), 15 U.S.C. § 2622 (1988). The parties submitted a settlement agreement seeking approval of the settlement and dismissal of the complaint. The Administrative Law Judge issued a Recommended Order of Dismissal on October 20, 1997 approving the settlement. The request for approval is based on an agreement entered into by the parties, therefore, we must review it to determine whether the terms are a fair, adequate and reasonable settlement of the complaint. 29 C.F.R. § 24.6. Macktal v. Secretary of Labor, 923 F.2d 1150, 1153-54 (5th Cir. 1991); Thompson v. U.S. 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. [Page 2] Review of the agreement reveals that it may encompass the settlement of matters under laws other than the TSCA. See Page 1. As stated in Poulos v. Ambassador Fuel Oil Co., Inc., Case No. 86-CAA-1, Sec. Order, Nov. 2, 1987, slip op. at 2:
Paragraph 2 provides that the Complainant shall keep the terms of the settlement confidential, with certain specified exceptions. We have held in a number of cases with respect to confidentiality provisions in settlement agreements that the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552 (1988)(FOIA) "requires agencies to disclose requested documents unless they are exempt from disclosure. . . ." Coffman v. Alyeska Pipeline Services Co. and Arctic Slope Inspection Services , ARB Case No. 96-141, Final Order Approving Settlement and Dismissing Complaint, June 24, 1996, slip op. at 2-3. See also Plumlee v. Alyeska Pipeline Services Co., Case Nos. 92-TSC-7, 10; 92-WPC-6, 7, 8, 10, Sec. Final Order Approving Settlements and Dismissing Cases with Prejudice, Aug. 6, 1993, slip op. at 6; Davis v. Valley View Ferry Authority , Case No. 93-WPC-1, Sec. Final Order Approving Settlement and Dismissing Complaint, Jun. 28, 1993, slip op. at 2 n.1 (parties' submissions become part of record and are subject to the FOIA); Ratliff v. Airco Gases , Case No. 93-STA-5, Sec. Final Order Approving Settlement and Dismissing Complaint with Prejudice, Jun. 25, 1993, slip op. at 2 (same). The records in this case are agency records which must be made available for public inspection and copying under the FOIA. In the event a request for inspection and copying of the record of this case is made by a member of the public, that request must be responded to as provided in the FOIA. If an exemption is applicable to the record in this case or any specific document in it, the Department of Labor would determine at the time a request is made whether to exercise its discretion to claim the exemption and withhold the document. If no exemption were applicable, the document would have to be disclosed. Since no FOIA request has been made, it would be premature to determine whether any of the exemptions in the FOIA would be applicable and whether the Department of Labor would exercise its authority to claim such an exemption and withhold the requested information. It would also be inappropriate to decide such questions in this proceeding. Department of Labor regulations provide specific procedures for responding to FOIA requests, for appeals by requestors from denials of such requests, and for [Page 3]
protecting the interests of submitters of confidential commercial information. See 29
C.F.R. Part 70 (1995).1
Page 1 of the agreement could be construed as a waiver by Complainant
of any causes of action he may have 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 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); Rodgers v.
General Electric Co., 781 F.2d 452, 454 (5th Cir. 1986).
The Board requires that all parties requesting settlement approval of
cases arising under the TSCA provide the settlement documentation for any other alleged claims
arising from the same factual circumstances forming the basis of the federal claim, or to certify
that no other such settlement agreements were entered into between the parties. Biddy v.
Alyeska Pipeline Service Company , ARB Case Nos. 96-109, 97-015, Final Order
Approving Settlement and Dismissing Complaint, Dec. 3, 1996, slip op. at 3. Accordingly, the
parties have certified that the agreement constitutes the entire and only settlement agreement
with respect to the complainant's claims. See Page 3.
We find that the agreement, as so construed, is a fair, adequate, and
reasonable settlement of the complaint. Accordingly, we APPROVE the agreement and
DISMISS THE COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE. See Page 1.
SO ORDERED. >
DAVID A. O'BRIEN
KARL J. SANDSTROM
JOYCE D. MILLER
1 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 shall notify the submitter promptly, 29 C.F.R. §
70.26(e); and the submitter will be given a reasonable period 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 suit is
filed by the requester to compel disclosure, the submitter will be notified, 29 C.F.R. §
70.26(h).
|
||||||||
|