DOL Home > OALJ > Whistleblower > Eisner v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, 90-SDW-2 (Sec'y Aug. 16, 1993) |
DATE: August 16, 1993 CASE NO. 90-SDW-2 IN THE MATTER OF GAYLE EISNER, COMPLAINANT, v. U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, RESPONDENT. BEFORE: THE SECRETARY OF LABOR FINAL ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND DISMISSING CASE The captioned case is before me for review under the employee protection provision of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), 42 U.S.C. § 300j-9(i) (1988). The parties executed a Settlement Agreement to resolve this matter by consent and submitted the agreement to the Administrative Law Judge who issued a Recommended Decision and Order of approval on July 16, 1993. The terms of the parties' agreement have been reviewed. I note that the agreement encompasses the settlement of matters arising under various laws, only one of which is the SDWA. See Settlement Agreement at 1-2, ¶ 3b. For the reasons set forth in Poulos v. Ambassador Fuel Oil Co., Inc., Case No. 86-CAA-1, Sec. Order, Nov. 2, 1987, slip op. at 2, I have limited my review of the agreement to determining whether its terms are a fair, adequate, and reasonable settlement of Complainant's allegations that Respondent violated the SDWA. I also note that certain language in the agreement could be construed as a waiver by Complainant of causes of action he may
[PAGE 2] have which arise in the future. See Settlement Agreement at 1-2, ¶ 3a. Because a waiver of Complainant's rights based on future employer actions would be contrary to public policy, I interpret these provisions as limited to a waiver of the right to seek damages in the future based on claims or causes of action arising out of facts or any set of facts occurring before the date of the agreement. See Polizzi v. Gibbs and Hill, Case No. 87-ERA-38, Sec. Order Rejecting in Part and Approving in Part Settlement Submitted by the Parties and Dismissing Case, Jul. 18, 1989, slip op. at 9, and cases cited therein. As so construed, I find the terms of the agreement to be fair, adequate, and reasonable, and therefore approve the Settlement Agreement. Accordingly, this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. See Settlement Agreement at 1, ¶ 3a. SO ORDERED. ROBERT B. REICH Secretary of Labor Washington, D.C.