UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

USDOL/OALJ Reporter
Holden v. Gulf States Utilities, 92-ERA-44 (Sec'y Aug. 18, 1995)

---

DATE:  August 18, 1995
CASE NO. 92-ERA-44


IN THE MATTER OF 

ICHAEL W. HOLDEN,

          COMPLAINANT,

     v.

GULF STATES UTILITIES,

          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 seeking approval of the
settlement and dismissal of the complaint.  The Administrative
Law Judge (ALJ) issued a decision on July 21, 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 ¶ 3.  For the reasons set forth in Poulos v.
Ambassador Fuel Oil 
[PAGE 2]
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.
    Paragraphs 5 and 6 contain language which provides that the parties
and their attorneys shall keep the terms of the Settlement Agreement
confidential except to family members,  attorneys, financial advisors
as well as the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission or other
governmental agencies or government entities.  I construe this
confidentiality provision as not restricting any disclosure where required by law. 
McGlynn v. Pulsair Inc., Case No. 93-CAA-2, Sec. Final Order
Approving Settlement, June 28, 1993, slip op. at 3.  
     The parties' submissions including the agreement become part
of the record of the case and are subject to the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552 (1988).  FOIA
requires Federal agencies to disclose requested records unless
they are exempt from disclosure under the Act.[1]   See
Debose v. Carolina Power & Light Co., Case No. 92-ERA-14,
Ord. Disapproving Settlement and Remanding Case, Feb. 7, 1994,
slip op. at 2-3 and cases there cited.  
     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.  
     SO ORDERED.


                              ROBERT B. REICH
                              Secretary of Labor

Washington, D.C.




[ENDNOTES]
           
[1]   Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 70.26(b), submitters may
designate specific information as confidential commercial
information to be handled as provided in the regulations.  When
FOIA requests are received for such information, the Department
of Labor will notify the submitter promptly, 29 C.F.R. §
70.26(c); the submitter will be given a reasonable amount of time
to state its objections to disclosure, 29 C.F.R. § 70.26(e);
and the submitter will be notified if a decision is made to
disclose the information, 29 C.F.R. § 70.26(f).  If the
information is withheld and a suit is filed by the requester to
compel disclosure, the submitter will be notified, 29 C.F.R.
§70.26(h).