DOL Home > OALJ > Whistleblower > Ass't Sec'y & Barrett v. New Albany Concrete Service, Inc., 2000-STA-10 (ALJ May 19, 2000) |
Ass't Sec'y & Barrett v. New Albany Concrete Service, Inc., 2000-STA-10 (ALJ May 19, 2000)
U.S. Department of Labor | Office of Administrative Law Judges 525 Vine Street, Suite 900 Cincinnati, OH 45202 (513) 684-3252 | ![]() |
Date: May 19, 2000
Case No.: 2000-STA-10
In the Matter of
ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF LABOR FOR
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH
Prosecuting Party
and
DONALD J. BARRETT
Complainant
v.
NEW ALBANY CONCRETE SERVICE, INC.
d/b/a IRVING MATERIALS, INC.
Respondent
BEFORE: RUDOLF L. JANSEN
Administrative Law Judge
This proceeding arises under Section 31105 of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA) of 1982 (49 U.S.C. § 31101) and the regulations promulgated thereunder [29 C.F.R. Part 1978 (1989)]. The parties, on May 18, 2000, filed a Joint Stipulation of Dismissal With Prejudice (hereinafter Stipulation or Agreement) in accordance with 29 C.F.R. § 1978.111(d)(2). The Stipulation is attached hereto and incorporated hereby by this reference. It resolves the controversy arising from the complaint of Donald J. Barrett under the statute. The Joint Stipulation is signed by the Complainant and his counsel, by Respondent's counsel, and also by counsel for the Prosecuting Party.
Under the STAA and implementing regulations, a proceeding may be terminated on the basis of a settlement provided either the Secretary or the Administrative Law Judge approves the Agreement. 49 U.S.C. app. § 2305(c)(2)(A); 29 C.F.R. § 1978.111(d)(2). The parties must submit for review an entire agreement to which each party has consented. Tankersley v. Triple Crown Services, Inc. 92-STA-8 (Sec'y Feb. 18, 1993). The Agreement must be reviewed to determine whether the terms are a fair, adequate and reasonable settlement of the complaint. Macktal v. Secretary of Labor, 923 F.2d 1150 (5th Cir. 1991); Thompson v. U.S. Department of Labor, 885 F.2d 551 (9th Cir. 1989); Fuchko and Yunker v. Georgia Power Co., Case Nos. 89-ERA-9, 89-ERA-10, Sec'y Ord. Mar. 23, 1989, slip op. at 1-2. This Order approving the settlement is final since all parties have joined in the Agreement. Swischer v. Gerber Childrenswear, Inc., 93-STA-1 (Sec'y Jan. 4, 1993).
I find the overall settlement terms to be reasonable but some clarification is necessary. The Agreement contains a strict confidentiality provision limiting all disclosures excepting under certain stated circumstances. The Agreement contains a provision that it does not preclude the Complainant from cooperating with any investigation by a federal, state or local administrative agency. It provides that Mr. Barrett is not to disclose the existence of the Agreement nor the terms of the Agreement with any third party. It has been held in a number of cases with respect to confidentiality provisions in Settlement Agreements that the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552 (1988) (FOIA) requires federal agencies to disclose requested documents unless they are exempt from disclosure. Faust v. Chemical Leaman Tank Lines, Inc., Case Nos. 92-SWD-2 and 93-STA-15, ARB Final Order Approving Settlement and Dismissing Complaint, March 31, 1998. The records in this case are agency records which must be made available for public inspection and copying under the Freedom of Information Act.
The Agreement reveals that it may encompass the settlement of matters involving laws other than the STAA. The Stipulation makes reference to a settlement of matters pending in the Kentucky State Court system as well as a case in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky. As was stated in Poulos v. Ambassador Fuel Oil Co., Inc., Case No. 86-CAA-1, Sec. Order, (Nov. 2, 1987):
I have therefore limited my review of this Agreement to determining whether the terms thereof are a fair, adequate and reasonable settlement of Mr. Barrett's allegation that Respondent had violated the STAA.
As so construed, I find the terms of the Joint Stipulation of Dismissal to be fair, adequate and reasonable, and therefore approve it. Accordingly, the complaint filed by Donald J. Barrett is hereby dismissed with prejudice.
Rudolf L. Jansen
Administrative Law Judge