McDonald v. University of Missouri, 90-ERA-59 (Sec'y Dec. 11, 1995)

USDOL/OALJ Reporter
McDonald v. University of Missouri, 90-ERA-59 (Sec'y Dec. 11, 1995)
DATE:  December 11, 1995
CASE NO. 90-ERA-59


IN THE MATTER OF 

ARA MCDONALD,

          COMPLAINANT,

     v.

UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI,

          RESPONDENT.


BEFORE:   THE SECRETARY OF LABOR


                     FINAL ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT
                         AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT

     This case arises under the employee protection provision of
the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (ERA), as amended, 42
U.S.C. § 5851 (1988 and Supp. IV 1992).  The parties
submitted a Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release seeking
approval of the settlement and dismissal of the complaint.  The
Administrative Law Judge issued a Recommended Decision Accepting
Settlement Agreement on November 1, 1995, recommending that the
settlement be approved.  
     The request for approval is based on an agreement entered
into by the parties, therefore, I must review it to determine
whether the terms are a fair, adequate and reasonable settlement
of the complaint.  42 U.S.C. § 5851(b)(2)(A) (1988). 
Macktal v. Secretary of Labor, 923 F.2d 1150, 1153-54 (5th
Cir. 1991); Thompson v. U.S. Dep't of Labor, 885 F.2d 551,
556 (9th Cir. 1989); Fuchko and Yunker v. Georgia Power
Co., Case Nos. 89-ERA-9, 89-ERA-10, Sec. Order, Mar. 23,
1989, slip op. at 1-2. 
     The agreement appears to encompass the settlement of matters
arising under various laws, only one of which is the ERA. 
See

[PAGE 2]
paragraphs 1, 8 and 9.  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 the Complainant's allegations that
Respondent violated the ERA.
          I find that the agreement, as here construed, is a
fair, adequate and reasonable settlement of the complaint. 
Accordingly, I APPROVE the agreement and DISMISS THE COMPLAINT
WITH PREJUDICE.  See paragraph 5.
     SO ORDERED.




                              ROBERT B. REICH
                              Secretary of Labor

Washington, D.C.
UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Office of Administrative Law Judges
