UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

DATE: November 30, 1990
CASE NO. 90-STA-8

IN THE MATTER OF

JAMES L. DAVIS,
   COMPLAINANT,

v.

KIMSTOCK, INC.,
   RESPONDENT.

BEFORE:    THE ACTING SECRETARY OF LABOR¹

   Before me for review is the Recommended Decision and Order of Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Richard K. Malamphy issued on October 2, 1990, in this case which arises under the employee protection provision of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 (STAA), 49 U.S.C. app. § 2305 (1988), and implementing regulations at 29 C.F.R. Part 1978 (1990).

   The ALJ recommends that the complaint be dismissed based on a settlement agreement filed by the parties prior to the date of the scheduled administrative hearing. Incorporating the settlement agreement into his decision by reference, the ALJ states that its terms constitute his findings of fact and conclusions of law and he recommends that the agreement be accepted and approved. Under the applicable regulations, however, the ALJ should have reviewed the settlement, determined if its terms were fair, adequate, and reasonable, and, if so, issued a final order of dismissal.² 29 C.F.R. § 1978.111(d)(2).

   In the interest of judicial economy, rather than remand the case to the ALJ, I have independently reviewed the parties' Settlement Agreement. See Thompson v. G & W Transportation Co.. Inc., Case No. 90-STA-25, Sec. Approval of Settlement and Dismissal of

Complaint, October 24, 1990, slip op. at 2. Upon review, I find that the terms of the agreement are acceptable with the following qualifications.

   Paragraph 3.03 of the Settlement Agreement appears to encompass the settlement of matters arising under various laws, only one of which is the STAA. As explained in Poulos v. Ambassador Fuel Oil Co.. Inc., Case No. 86-CAA-1, Sec. Order, November 2, 1987, slip op. at 2, my authority over this settlement agreement is limited to matters arising under the STAA. Accordingly, 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 STAA.

   I also note that Paragraph 3.03 of the agreement could be construed as a waiver by Complainant of any causes of action he may have which arise in the future. As the Secretary has held in prior cases, see Bittner v. Fuel Economy Contracting Co., Case No. 88-ERA-22, Sec. Order Approving Settlement Agreement and Dismissing Complaint, June 28, 1990, slip op. at 2, such a provision must be interpreted as limited to the right to sue in the future on claims or causes of action arising out of facts or any set of facts occurring before the date of the agreement.

   With the limitations set forth herein, I find the terms of the agreement fair, adequate, and reasonable and, therefore, approve the Settlement Agreement.

   Accordingly, the complaint in this case is DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.

         Acting Secretary of Labor

Washington, D.C.

¹

²Furthermore, it was unnecessary and inappropriate for the ADJ to make findings of fact and reach conclusions of law. See Thompson v. Arizona Public Service Co., Case No. 86-ERA-27, Sec. Amended Order Approving Settlement, September 14, 1990, slip op. at 2 n.1.