Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Robert J. Feldman submitted
a Recommended Decision and Order to me in this case under the
employee protection provision of the Energy Reorganization Act
of 1974, as amended (ERA), 42 U.S.C. § 5851 (1982), recommending
that the complaint be denied. The facts are fully set forth
in the ALJ's decision. Briefly, Ms. Orr was discharged by
Brown & Root in February 1984 and filed a complaint under
section 5851 alleging the discharge violated the ERA. That
complaint was settled by an agreement in July 1984 which provided,
among other things, that Brown & Root would provide Ms. Orr
with a letter of reference stating only the fact of her employment
with the dates, position and rate of pay. Brown & Root
also agreed to seal Ms. Orr's personnel record and provide
only the above information about her in response to inquiries.
[Page 2]
Ms. Orr agreed to dismissal of her complaint with prejudice.
Brown & Root did not provide the letter of reference until
January 1985. On two occasions, in September and October 1984,
Brown & Root's attorney and an employee of its personnel department
revealed Brown & Root's reason for discharging Ms. Orr.
Ms. Orr then filed this complaint in October 1984 alleging that
the settlement agreement had been breached and that new,
independent violations of the ERA had been committed against Ms. Orr
by Brown & Root. However, on December 12, 1984, the parties stipulated
that Ms. Orr's claim of breach of the settlement agreement
was withdrawn without prejudice to Ms. Orr's right to seek relief
on that claim in another forum.
Ms. Orr moved for summary decision on the remainder of her
complaint and Brown & Root moved for dismissal and for summary
decision as well. The ALJ granted Brown & Root's motion for
summary decision on the grounds that Ms. Orr was not an employee
of Brown & Root at the time the alleged violations took place.
DISCUSSION
An agreement to settle litigation is a contract and is subject
to the rules of contract interpretation. Pennwalt Corp. v.
Plough, Inc., 676 F.2d 77, 79 (3rd Cir. 1982). Such an agreement
is specifically enforceable in the court where the agreement was
effected. Id. at 80. "[C]ourts retain inherent power to enforce
agreements entered into in settlement of litigation pending
before them." Aro Corp. v. Allied Witan Co., 531 F.2d 1368, 1371
(6th Cir. 1976). Furthermore, as with any contract, the parties'
intent controls what is or is not covered by the agreement.
Pennwalt v. Plough, supra, 676 F.2d 77, 80.
Here, there can be little doubt that the alleged discriminatory
acts, failure to provide the letter of reference (implicitly,
in a reasonable time), and revelation of Brown & Root's
reason for discharging Ms. Orr in February 1984 (the key fact
about her employment for which she had bargained confidentiality)
were covered by the settlement agreement. (See paragraphs
5 and 6 of agreement of July 24, 1984.) Since the parties
have stipulated that breach of the settlement agreement has
been withdrawn as a claim in this case, the complaint must
be dismissed for that reason. I would note that by ordering
dismissal of the complaint in this case for the above reason,
I intimate no ruling on the ALJ's stated grounds for dismissal
or on any other points raised by the parties.
[Page 3]
Accordingly, it is ordered that this complaint is DISMISSED.