The parties have agreed to settle Andrews's claim. Accordingly, as construed, we APPROVE the Agreement and DISMISS the complaint with prejudice.
SO ORDERED.
M. CYNTHIA DOUGLASS
Chief Administrative Appeals Judge
DAVID G. DYE
Administrative Appeals Judge
[ENDNOTES]
1 When the parties reached a settlement, the case was pending before the ALJ. Therefore, the ALJ appropriately reviewed the Agreement. However, the Administrative Review Board issues final decisions in STAA cases. 29 C.F.R. § 1978.109(c)(2)(2006); see, e.g., Bosanko v. S. Refrigerated Transp., Inc., ARB No. 06-155, ALJ No. 2005-STA-0043 (ARB Jan. 31, 2007). Since no party has filed an appeal under the TSCA, SDWA, SWDA, WPCA, or CERCLA, we do not review the settlement under those statutes.
2 29 C.F.R. § 1978.111(d)(2)(2006).
3 Id.
4 R. D. & O. at 3.
5 Agreement para. 1.
6 See, e.g., Saporito v. GE Med. Sys., ARB No. 05-009, ALJ Nos. 03-CAA-1, 2, slip op. at 2 (ARB May 24, 2005).
7 Agreement para. 3.
8 5 U.S.C.A. § 552 (West 2006).
9 Coffman v. Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co. & Arctic Slope Inspection Serv., ARB No. 96-141, ALJ Nos. 96-TSC-5, 6, slip op. at 2 (ARB June 24, 1996).
10 29 C.F.R. § 70 et seq. (2006).
11 Ruud v. Westinghouse Hanford Co., ARB No. 96-087, ALJ No. 1988-ERA-33, 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).