Office of Administrative Law Judges Seven Parkway Center - Room
290 Pittsburgh, PA 15220
(412) 644-5754 (412) 644-5005 (FAX)
DATE: June 28, 2000
CASE NO. 2000-WPC-1
In the Matter of
KENNY HINES
Complainant
v.
VILLAGE OF GNADENHUTTEN
Respondent
RECOMMENDED DECISION AND ORDER APPROVING
SETTLEMENT
Complainant filed a complaint and two supplemental complaints setting
forth his claim of discrimination based upon the Safe Water Drinking Act, 42 U.S.C. §
300j-9(i) and the Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1367. Complainant alleged
that he engaged in protected activity as a result of his relationship with a co-employee. The
Complainant alleged that the co-employee was a suspected whistleblower as defined under the
Acts, and that the Complainant refused to join in the harassment that was directed toward this co-
employee. Complainant also alleged that after he initiated a complaint under the Ohio
Occupational Health and Safety Act, in October 1998, he was discriminated against and
terminated from his part-time job with the Respondent based solely upon his protected activity of
filing the complaint. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration investigated
Complainant's allegations and by letter dated December 30, 1999, Deborah Zubaty, Area
Director, informed Complainant that his complaint was investigated and found to have no merit.
On or about January 6, 2000, Complainant filed a request for a hearing
before the Department of Labor's Office of Administrative Law Judges. A Notice of Hearing
was issued January 18, 2000, which set out a discovery schedule and notice that trial would begin
May 9, 2000 and continuing as necessary. Trial began May 9, 2000 and on the following day,
May 10, 2000, the parties announced in open court that a settlement had been reached. They
were permitted time in which to submit a written Settlement Agreement. By letter dated June 22,
2000, the parties submitted said Agreement. My review of the Settlement Agreement is limited
to a determination of whether its' terms are fair, adequate and reasonable settlement of the
Complainant's complaint concerning violations of the Safe Water Drinking Act and the Water
Pollution Control Act. The basic criteria is whether the Settlement adequately protects the
whistleblower. Further, the Settlement must not be contrary to public interest.
[Page 2]
After consideration of the Settlement Agreement and the representations of
the parties, I find the Agreement to be fair, adequate and reasonable, and I believe it is in the
public interest to adopt the Settlement Agreement as a basis for the administrative disposition of
this matter.
Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED:
1.
That the settlement agreement attached hereto be approved.
2.
That the claim of Kenneth Hines against the Village of Gnadenhutten be dismissed with
prejudice.
MICHAEL P. LESNIAK
Administrative Law Judge
MPL:mr
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, United States Department of Labor, Room S-4309,
Frances Perkins Building, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW, 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 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).