UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

USDOL/OALJ Reporter
Smith v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 97-ERA-25 (ALJ Mar. 12, 1997)

---

U.S. Department of Labor
Office of Administrative Law Judges
Heritage Plaza Bldg, 5th Floor
111 Veteran's Memorial Boulevard
Metairie, LA 70005

Date Issued: March 12, 1997

CASE NO.: 97-ERA-25

In the Matter of

DONALD C. SMITH
    Complainant

    v.

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
    Respondent

ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY DECISION AND
RECOMMENDED ORDER OF DISMISSAL     On February 6, 1997, by letter to the Chief, Administrative Law Judge, Office of Administrative Law Judges, Complainant requested a formal hearing in Case No. 96-ERA-10. Complainant seeks to appeal the findings of the District Director that he failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination by the Respondent.

    On February 13, 1997, Respondent filed a Motion for Summary Decision and as grounds therefor avers:

(1) Case No. 96-ERA-10 was the subject of a May 15, 1996, settlement agreement;

(2) that based on the agreement, Administrative Law Judge Quentin P. McColgin issued an Order on May 22, 1996, recommending dismissal of the complaint; and

(3) by Order dated June 24, 1996, the Administrative Review Board approved the agreement and dismissed the complaint.

---

[Page 2]

    Respondent argues that this proceeding must be dismissed since an administrative law judge has no authority to review a final order of the Administrative Review Board pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 29.6.

    On February 13, 1997, the undersigned issued an "Order to Show Cause," which was duly received by Counsel for Complainant on February 18, 1997, requiring Complainant to show cause by February 24, 1997, why Respondent's motion should not be granted.

    Complainant has not filed a response to the Order to Show Cause.

    By letter dated February 3, 1997, the District Director advised Complainant that he failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination by Respondent. The Director relied in part upon Respondent's showing that it complied with the provisions of the settlement agreement executed by the parties on May 13, 1996.

    Thus, it is apparent that Complainant is seeking to enforce provisions of the settlement agreement which have been approved by final Order of the Secretary. Since there are no regulatory provisions empowering an Administrative Law Judge to review or enforce compliance with a final Order of the Secretary issued pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 29.6, Complainant's request for hearing must be dismissed.

    Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, Respondent's Motion for Summary Decision is hereby GRANTED.

    IT IS HEREBY FURTHER RECOMMENDED that Case No. 97-ERA-25 be dismissed with prejudice.

    ORDERED this 12th day of March, 1997, at Metairie, Louisiana.

      LEE J. ROMERO, JR.
      Administrative Law Judge