The parties have agreed to settle Denault's STAA claim. Accordingly, with the reservations noted above, we APPROVE the agreement and DISMISS the complaint with prejudice.
SO ORDERED.
OLIVER M. TRANSUE
Administrative Appeals Judge
M. CYNTHIA DOUGLASS
Chief Administrative Appeals Judge
[ENDNOTES]
1 49 U.S.C.A. § 31105 (West 2007). The STAA has been amended since Denault filed his complaint. See Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007, P.L. 110-53, 121 Stat. 266 (Aug. 3, 2007). Even if the amendments were applicable to this complaint, they would not affect our decision.
2 29 C.F.R. Part 1978 (2007).
3 29 C.F.R. § 1978.111(d)(2).
4 See id.
5 5 U.S.C.A. § 557(b) (West 1996).
6 See Roadway Express, Inc. v. Dole, 929 F.2d 1060, 1066 (5th Cir. 1991).
7 See, e.g., para. 2.B of the Agreement.
8 Fish v. H & R Transfer, ARB No. 01-071, ALJ No. 2000-STA-056, slip op. at 2 (ARB Apr. 30, 2003).
9 Ruud v. Westinghouse Hanford Co., ARB No. 96-087, ALJ No. 1988-ERA-033, slip op. at 6 (ARB Nov. 10, 1997); Conn. Light & Power Co. v. Sec'y, U.S. Dep't of Labor, 85 F.3d 89, 95-96 (2d Cir. 1996) (employer engaged in unlawful discrimination by restricting complainant's ability to provide regulatory agencies with information; improper "gag" provision constituted adverse employment action).