DOL Home > OALJ > Whistleblower > Scott v. Yeargin, 91-SDW-1 (Sec'y May 6, 1992) |
DATE: May 6, 1992 CASE NO. 91-SDW-l IN THE MATTER OF JACK H. SCOTT, COMPLAINANT, V. YEARGIN, INC., and WILLAMETTE INDUSTRIES, RESPONDENTS . CASE NO. 91-SDW-2 JACK H. SCOTT, COMPLAINANT, v. WAYNE MAULDIN, AND W . M . I ., INC . CRANE SERVICE , RESPONDENTS . BEFORE: THE SECRETARY OF LABOR FINAL ORDER OF CONSOLIDATION AND DISMISSAL Before me for review are the Recommended Orders of Dismissal (R.D. and O.) of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) in these cases arising under the Safe Drinking Water Act, (SDW) 42 U.S.C. 300j-9(1) (1988). The parties in the captioned cases
[PAGE 2] submitted before the ALJ in case No. 91-SDW-1, an Agreement for Voluntary Dismissal and Release ~Agreement), signed and dated March 9, 1992, with two signed Consent Orders of Dismissal attached. The Agreement on its face would settle both cases, and upon review, the ALJ recommended that both cases be dismissed with prejudice.1/ For reasons of expedience and administrative economy, the cases are hereby CONSOLIDATED for the purpose of reviewing the dismissal pursuant to a common settlement. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a), as made applicable by 29 C.F.R. 18.1(a) (1991). The Agreement states, inter alia, that, 1. "Each party takes nothing by that party's action and each party shall pay their own costs and attorneys' fees. 2. The Compla1nant, Jack H. Scott, agrees to dismiss these actions with prejudice . . . . 3. The Respondents. . . agree not to file any lawsuits against Complainant . . . ." See Attachment A to ALJ's R.D. and O. in 91-SDW-1 at 1. Each Consent Order of Dismissal provides that the parties have agreed to settle this matter and that for good and valuable considerationt Complainant agrees to seek a voluntary dismissal of the action with prejudice. Complainant and each Respondents' counsel signed the Agreement and counsel for Complainant and the respective Respondents signed the consent orders. Because these requests for dismissal are based on a settlement agreement entered into by the parties, I must review the agreement to determine whether the terms are a fair, adequate and reasonable settlement of these SDW complain~. 42 U.S.C. 5851(b)(2)tA): 29 C.F.R. 24.6(a) (1991). Review of the Agreement indicates that it may encompass matters arising under various laws, only one of which is the SDW. For the reasons set f orth in Poulos v. Ambassador Fuel Oil Co., Inc., Case No. 86-CAA-l, Sec. Order, Nov. 2, 1987, slip op. at 2, I have limited my review to determining whether the Agreement's terms are a fair, adequate and reasonable settlement of Complainant's allegations that Respondent violated the SDW. Based on a review of the submissions before me in each case, including the Agreement and Consent Orders, I conclude that the
[PAGE 3] terms of the Agreement are a fair, adequate and reasonable settlement of Complainant's complaints under the SDW. Accordingly, I approve the settlement and dismiss the complaints with prejudice. SO ORDERED. LYNNE MARTIN Secretary of Labor [ENDNOTES] [1] In so recommending, the ALJ expressly recognized that his Recommended Order of Dismissal in Jack H. Scott v. Wayne Mauldin and W.M.I. Inc. Crane Service, Case No. 91-SDW-2 was pending review before me. 29 C.F.R. § 24.6 Washington, D.C.