DOL Home > OALJ > Whistleblower > Pierce v. United States Enrichment Corp., 2003-ERA-1 (ALJ June 30, 2003) |
Pierce v. United States Enrichment Corp., 2003-ERA-1 (ALJ June 30, 2003)
U.S. Department of Labor | Office of Administrative Law Judges 36 E. 7th Street, Suite 2525 Cincinnati, OH 45202 (513) 684-3252 |
Issue Date: 30 June 2003
Case No.: 2003-ERA-0001
In the Matter of:
NANCEY PIERCE
Complainant
v.
U.S. ENRICHMENT CORPORATION
Respondent
This is a proceeding arising under the Energy Reorganization Act, 42 U.S.C. § 5851, and its implementing regulations found at 29 C.F.R. Part 24. The instant proceeding arose out of a complaint filed on or about January 5, 2001, by Nancey Pierce, alleging that she had been illegally discharged in an involuntary reduction in force. Complainant alleges that previous protected activity she engaged in contributed to the company's decision to terminate her employment. A hearing was scheduled for Tuesday June 24, 2003.
On Friday, June 20, 2003, the parties notified the Court that a settlement agreement had been reached. On June 25, 2003, the parties forwarded to this Court a signed settlement agreement. I have reviewed the settlement thoroughly, and I find the agreed upon terms and the consideration for the mutual promises to be adequate and satisfactory.1 Under the circumstances, considering the total settlement herein, I recommend to the Secretary of Labor that this case be dismissed with prejudice. I believe that the terms of the total agreement are fair, adequate and a reasonable settlement of Complainant's allegations against the Respondents. Furthermore, I find that the settlement agreement ffectuates the purposes and policies of the statute under which it arises.
I also recommend the terms of the settlement agreement be maintained confidential and that they not be disclosed to anyone except as set out by said settlement agreement, attached herewith, or where required by law.
Accordingly, it is recommended that the Secretary dismiss with prejudice Ms. Pierce's complaint against Respondent and hold the terms of the settlement agreement confidential.
JOSEPH E. KANE
Administrative Law Judge
1 Section 3 of the settlement, entitled "Release by Pierce," releases Respondent from future claims arising "by reason of any matter, cause or thing whatsoever from the beginning of the World to the day of the date of this agreement." See Full Release Agreement ¶ 3. Although the language appears to appropriately limit the scope of its coverage, I pause to point out that waivers of future claims in settlement agreements are narrowly tailored on approval from the Secretary. See, e.g., Armijo v Wackenhut Services, Inc., 94-ERA-7 (Sec'y Aug. 22, 1994); Bittner v. Fuel Economy Contracting Co., 88-ERA-22 (Sec'y June 28, 1990) (interpreting provision as limiting only right to sue in future on claims or causes of action arising out of facts or any set of facts occurring before date of agreement).