Office of Administrative Law Judges 800 K Street, NW, Suite 400-N Washington,
DC 20001-8002
Date Issued: August 30, 1999
Case No.: 1999-ERA-2
1999-ERA-23
In the Matter of
Donald Ranft,
Complainant
v.
Pennsylvania Power & Light,
Respondent
RECOMMENDED DECISION AND ORDER
APPROVING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
AND DISMISSING COMPLAINTS WITH PREJUDICE
This is a proceeding arising under the Energy Reorganization Act, 42 U.S.C.
5851, and its implementing regulations found at 20 C.F.R. Part 24. I have received a Joint Motion for
Approval of the Settlement Agreement, Dismissal With Prejudice, and Confidential Treatment of the
Settlement Agreement, which has been signed by all parties of record.
The Part 24 regulations do not contain any provision relating to a dismissal of a
complaint by voluntary settlement. Therefore, it is necessary to refer to the Rules of Practice and
Procedure for Administrative Hearings before the Office of Administrative Law Judges, 29 C.F.R. Part
18, which Rules are controlling in the absence of a specific provision at part 24.
Part 18.9 allows the parties in a proceeding before an administrative law judge to
reach agreement on their own. 29 C.F.R. Part 18.9(a)-(c). Once agreement has been reached by the
parties, the regulation permits the parties to "[n]otify the administrative law judge that the parties
have reached a full settlement and have agreed to dismissal of the action." 29 C.F.R. Part
18.9(c)(2). Once such notification occurs, the administrative law judge shall then issue a decision within
thirty (30) days if satisfied with the agreement's form and substance. 29 C.F.R. Part 18.9(d).
The Judge must review the Settlement Agreement to determine whether its terms
are a fair, adequate and reasonable settlement of the complaint. Bonanno v. Stone & Webster
Engineering Corp., 97 ERA 33 (ARB 6-27-97).
[Page 2]
Upon careful review, this Judge has reached the determination that the
Settlement Agreement fully comports with precedent established by the Secretary and/or Administrative
Review Board.
Paragraph V of the Settlement Agreement provides that the parties shall keep the
terms of the settlement confidential, with some delineated exceptions. I note, however, that the parties
have attempted to bring this confidentiality provision into compliance with applicable case law by
specifically providing that the confidentiality provision does not restrict disclosure where required by
law.
I note that the parties have designated the Settlement Agreement as confidential
commercial information, as defined at 29 C.F.R. Part 70.26, and thereby attempt to preclude
disclosure pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552.
FOIA, however, requires agencies to disclose requested documents unless they
are exempt from disclosure. See Bonanno, supra, at p. 2; Klock v. Tennessee Valley
Auth., 95 ERA 20 (ARB 5-30-96), at p. 2; Darr v. Precise Hard Chrome, 95 CAA 6
(Sec'y 5-9-95), at p. 2; Webb v. Consolidated Edison Co., 93 CAA 5 (Sec'y 11-3-93), at
p. 2. Since no FOIA request has been made, "it would be premature to determine whether any
of the exemptions in 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." Darr, supra, at pp. 2-3.
See also, Debose v. Carolina Power and Light Co., 92 ERA 14 (Sec'y 2-7-94), at p. 3.
Nevertheless, the Settlement Agreement shall be placed in a portion of the file clearly designated as
confidential commercial information which must be handled in accordance with the appropriate
procedure for a FOIA request, which procedure is found at 29 C.F.R. Part 70.26. See
generally, Bonanno, supra, at n.1.
Accordingly, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Settlement Agreement
between Complainant Donald Ranft and Respondent Pennsylvania Power And Light Company
("PP & L"), be APPROVED and that the matters be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
It is FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the Settlement Agreement be designated as confidential
commercial information to be handled in accordance with 29 C.F.R. Part 70.26.
LINDA S.
CHAPMAN
Administrative
Law Judge
NOTICE: This Recommended Decision and Order will automatically become the final order of the
Secretary unless, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. 24.8, a petition for review is timely filed with the Administrative
Review Board, U.S. Department of Labor, Frances Perkins Building, Room S-4309, 200 Constitution
Avenue N.W., Washington, D.C. 20210. Such a petition for review must be received by the
Administrative Review Board within ten business days of the date of this Recommended Decision and
Order, and shall be served on all parties and on the Chief Administrative Law Judge. See 29
C.F.R. 24.8 and 24.9, as amended by 63 Fed.Reg. 6614 (1998)